On the Development of Evaluation System and

Transport Demand Model for Road Network

Planning In Developing Countries
(A Case Study of Indonesia)

By

Amilia Aldian
B.Eng. (Transport) and M.Eng. (Transport Systems Engineering)

A thesis submitted for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

School of Natural and Built Environments

Division of Information Technology and Engineering
University of South Australia
April 2006
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents-i
List of Figures vii
List of Tables ix
Glossary X

Summary Xii

Declaration -Xiv

Acknowledgment xv
List of Publications xvi

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Research Background: Evaluation System 1

1.2 Research Background: Transport Demand Model .4

1.3 Objectives of Research -8

1.4 Organisation of the Thesis 8

2 TRANSPORT PLANNING; PROJECT EVALUATION AND TRANSPORT

DEMAND MODEL .11

2.1 Introduction -11

2.2 Definition of Planning

2.3 Decision Making Styles -13

2.4 Transport System 15

2.5 Transport Planning -16

2.6 Transportation Projects Evaluation 19

2.6.1 Developments of Alternatives 21

2.6.2 Identification of Impacts 22

2.7 Transport Demand Model 24
2.8 Summary 31

3 THE PRACTICE OF EVALUATION SYSTEM AND TRANSPORT DEMAND

MODEL FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS 33
3.1 Introduction -33

3.2 Transportation Projects Evaluation System in Developed Countries 34

3.2.1 France 34

1
 3.2.2
36
3.2.4 The United States of America 38
3.2.5 The United Kingdom 39
3.2.6 Comparison Between Developed Countries 41

3.2.7 European Union 42

3.3 Transport Demand Model for Transportation Projects in Developed Countries 42
3.3.1 France 42
3.3.2 Germany 43
3.3.3 Japan 43
3.3.4 The United States of America 43
3.3.5 The United Kingdom 44
3.3.6 Comparison Between Developed Countries 44
3.4 Evaluation Methodologies in Developing Countries Highway Development
and Management System (HDM) .44

3.4.1 Background 44
3.4.2 Evaluation System 48
3.4.3 Transport Demand Forecasting Model 50
3.5 Summary 54

4 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS IN TRANSPORTATION PROJECT

EVALUATION 56
4.1 Introduction -56
4.2 Principles of Cost Benefit Analysis 57
4.3 Consumers' Surplus and User Benefit When Demand Shifts 60
4.4 Induced Demand 61

4.5 Identification of User Cost and Benefit -63

4.6 Decision Criteria 64

4.7 Criticisms of Cost Benefit Analysis 64
4.8 Extension of Cost Benefit Analysis 66
4.9 Summary 67

5 MULTICRITERL& ANALYSIS IN TRANSPORTATION PROJECT

EVALUATION 69
5.1 Introduction 69
5.2 Formulation of Multicriteria Analysis Problems 70

11
 5.3 Multicriteria Analysis Methods -74
5.4 Applications of Multicriteria Analysis in Transportation Project Evaluation 77
5.5 Criteria Weights Determination Methods -81

5.5.1 Objective Approaches 81

5.5.2 Subjective Approaches 82

5.6 Analytic Hierarchy Process -84

5.6.1 Decomposition -85

5.6.2 Prioritisation 86
5.6.3 Synthesis -90

5.6.4 AHP and Group Decision Making 91

5.6.5 Modifications of AHP 92

5.7 Criticisms of Multicriteria Analysis 94
5.8 Summary 95

6 THE TRADITIONAL FOUR-STEP MODEL 97

6.1 Introduction -97
6.2 Preparation of the Four-Step Model Application 100
6.2.1 Developing Application Framework -100
6.2.2 Defining Study Area, Zoning and Network System 102
6.3 Trip Generation 104
6.3.1 Growth-Factor Method 104
6.3.2 Linear Regression Method 105
6.3.3 Cross-Classification or Category Analysis Method 106
6.4 Trip Distribution 107
6.4.1 Growth-Factor Methods 108
6.4.2 The Gravity Model 109
6.4.3 The Multinomial Logit Model -112
6.5 Modal Split 113
6.5.1 The Modal Split Curve 114
6.5.2 The Joint Gravity Model and Logit Model 115
6.5.3 The Nested Logit Model .116
6.6 Traffic Assignment 119
6.6.1 All or Nothing Assignment 122
6.6.2 Stochastic Assignment 123
6.6.3 Equilibrium Assignment -124
6.7 Criticisms of the Traditional Four-Step Model 126

111
 6.8 Improvements of the Four-Step Model -127
6.9 Summary 129

7 UNCONVENTIONAL TRANSPORT DEMAND MODELS AND OTHER

APPROACHES IN TRANSPORT DEMAND MODELS .130
7.1 Introduction -130
7.2 The Traffic Count Based Model: Structured Approach -131

7.3 The Traffic Count Based Model: Unstructured Approach 135

7.4 Elasticity Based Traffic Forecasting Models .137
7.5 Other Approaches in Transport Demand Models 139
7.5.1 Discrete Choice Models 139
7.5.2 Neural Network -139
7.5.3 Fuzzy Logic 140
7.6 Summary 142

8 DEVELOPMENT OF MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS METHOD FOR ROAD

PROJECTS EVALUATION IN DEVELOPiNG COUNTRIES 143
8.1 Introduction 143
8.2 The Indonesian Planning Process -143

8.3 Criteria Determination 148

8.4 Selecting Normalisation Method 154
8.4.1 Vector Normalisation 155
8.4.2 Analytic Hierarchy Process Method 155
8.4.3 Linear Scale Transformation -156
8.4.4 Ideal Point Concept 156
8.4.5 Comparing Normalisation Method .157
8.5 Development of Objective Criteria Weights Determination Method 159
8.5.1 The Entropy Method 159
8.5.2 The CRITIC Method -161

8.5.3 The PRODEM Method 164

8.6 Modifying the AHP Judgment Scale for Quantifying Criteria 170
8.7 Development of Subjective Criteria Weights Determination Method 178
8.7.1 Comparison between the Proportional Method and AHP -182
8.7.2 Group Decision Making 184
8.8 Summary 186

iv
9 DEVELOPMENT OF PASSANGER TRANSPORT DEMAND MODEL 189
9.1 Introduction 189
9.2 STEM Model 190
9.3 Extending Evans Combined Distribution and Assignment Model 191

9.4 Summary 198

10 DEVELOPMENT OF FREIGHT TRANSPORT DEMAND MODEL 199

10.1 Introduction 199
10.2 Freight Demand Modelling Approach 200
10.2.1 Introduction 200
10.2.2 The Causes of Freight Demand and Preliminary Modelling Steps 200
10.2.3 Disaggregate Approach 202
10.2.4 Aggregate Approach 203
10.3 The Direct Demand Model .205
10.3.1 The Basic Direct Demand Model 205
10.3.2 The Limitations of the Basic Direct Demand Models 206
10.4 Improving the Basic Direct Demand Model -208
10.4.1 Model Structure and Estimation -208
10.4.2 Incorporating Spatial Structure Effects -211

10.5 Summary 213

11 APPLICATIONS OF THE TRANSPORT DEMAND MODELS 215

11.1 Introduction 215
11.2 Study Area and Zoning 215
11.2.1 Socio-economic Conditions .215
11.2.2 Road Network Conditions 217
11.2.3 Zoning System -219
11.3 Network Model Development and Travel Cost Estimation 220
11.3.1 Network Model Development 220
11.3.2 Travel Cost Estimation 223
11.4 Passenger Demand Model Calibration 224
11.5 Freight Demand Model Calibration -228
11.5.1 Calibration of the Basic Direct Demand Model -228
11.5.2 Calibration of the Improved Direct Demand Model 230

v
 11.5.3 Calibration of the Improved Direct Demand Model with
Spatial Structure Variables 232
11.6 Evaluation of Central Java Road Network Planning 233
11.6.1 Base Year Condition 235
11.6.2 The 2011 Conditions 240
11.7 Summary 246

12 DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORT DEMAND MODEL USING

TRAFFIC COUNT DATA 248
12.1 Introduction 248
12.2 Improving the Structured Traffic Count Based Model 248
12.3 Model Application 254
12.3.1 The Study Area and the Data 254
12.3.2 Model Calibration 257
12.4 Structured Approach for Congested Network 261
12.5 Summary 263

13 CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH RECOMENDATIONS 265

13.1 Conclusions of the Research 265
13.2 Contributions of the Research 273
13.3 Further Research Recommendations 274
13.3.1 Further Research for the Developed Evaluation System -274
13.3.2 Further Research for the Developed Transport Demand Models 274

REFERENCES 276

vi
 List of Figure

Figure 2.1 - Continuous planning process 18

Figure 2.2 - Spatial representation of level (1)-(6) models in the modelling hierarchy-- 30
Figure 3.1 - Major components of benefit-cost analysis in the USA 38
Figure 3.2 - A simplified representation of the decision-making process 41
Figure 3.3 - Highway management cycle 47
Figure 3.4 - Travel demand curve showing consumers' surplus 48
Figure 3.5 - Travel demand curve showing user revenue 49
Figure 4.1 - Consumers' surplus and user benefit 58
Figure 4.2 - Consumers' surplus and user benefit when demand and supply shift 61
Figure 5.1 - Hierarchical structure of a multicritena analysis problem 71
Figure 5.2 - A general structure of multicriteria analysis 73
Figure 5.3 - A classification of MCA methods based on information from decision
maker 75
Figure 5.4 - A classification of MCA methods based on the cognitive processing
level and the aggregation function 76
Figure 5.5 - Criteria relationship network 83
Figure 5.6 - AHP hierarchical structure to select the best rail transit network 85
Figure 6.1 - The four-step model 98
Figure 6.2 - Relation between problem scale and analysis complexity 99
Figure 6.3 - A framework for model development process 101
Figure 6.4 - Typical trip matrix structure 107
Figure 6.5 - Modal-split curve 115
Figure 6.6 - A conceptual structure for a nested logit model 117
Figure 6.7 - Typical speed-flow relationship for a long link 121
Figure 6.8 - Typical speed-cost relationship for a long link 121
Figure 8.1 - The Indonesian annual development planning process 146
Figure 8.2 - Structure of multicriteria analysis for Indonesia 154
Figure 8.3 - Actual and estimated weights using the proportion method 183
Figure 8.4 - Actual and estimated weights using AHP 183
Figure 8.5 - The structure of multicriteria analysis for road project in developing
countries 187
Figure 11.1 - Map of Indonesia 216
Figure 11.2 - Central Java intercity road network 217
Figure 11.3 - An example of road environment of main arterial road in Java Island 219
Figure 11.4 - Nodes and links number 221
Figure 11.5 - Modelled road network and street types 222
Figure 11.6 - Modelled road network and free flow speed 223
Figure 11.7 - Competing destination model 232
Figure 11.8 - Intervening opportunities model 233
Figure 11.9 - Central Java road network planning - 234
Figure 11.10 - The 2001 modelled traffic flows - 239
Figure 11.11 - Volume capacity ratio from modelled flow 240
Figure 11.12 - The 2011 traffic flows (no network improvements) 242
Figure 11.13 - The 2011 V/c ratio (no network improvements) 243
Figure 11.14 - The 2011 V/C ratio (network improvements are not taken into account)--- 244
Figure 11.15 - The 2011 V/C ratio (network improvements are taken into account) 245
vii
Figure 12.1 - Basic principle of structured approaches 249
Figure 12.2 - Algorithm for model mevelopment 252
Figure 12.3 - Algorithm for traffic volumes estimation 253
Figure 12.4 - North coast route and central route 254
Figure 12.5 - The road sections 256

viii
 List of Tables

Table 2.1 - Example of types of impacts 23

Table 2.2 - Functional relations between incidence groups and impacts -24
Table 3.1 - List of the indicators for urban projects evaluation in France .35
Table 3.2 - Benefit Incidence Table 37
Table 3.3 - Comparison of AST results for two schemes 40
Table 3.4 - Change in highway management processes and the corresponding HDM-
4 applications 46
Table 5.1 - Decision Matrix 72
Table 5.2 - Performance of Five Multicriteria Analysis Methods .79
Table 5.3 - Judgment scale of relative importance for pairwise comparison 87
Table 5.4 - The Random Consistency Index (RI) 90
Table 6.1 - Summary of the framework for model development process 102
Table 6.1 - A typical category analysis table 106
Table 6.2 - The most common cost function types 110
Table 6.3 - Attributes affect mode choice 114
Table 6.4 - Classification of traffic assignment methods 120
Table 8.1 - List of road performance indicators for Indonesia 149
Table 8.2 - Proposed evaluation criteria for Indonesia 151
Table 8.3 - Comparison of normalisation method 158
Table 8.4 - Ratings and rankings of performance of companies for entropy 160
Table 8.5 - Ratings and rankings of performance of companies for CRITIC .- 163
Table 8.6 - Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between criterion and final
result 168
Table 8.7 - Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between criterion and final
result 170
Table 8.8 - Judgment scale of relative importance of different methods 174
Table 8.9 - A consistent verbal judgment matrix with five alternatives 175
Table 8.10 - Alternative weights calculated using different judgment scales 170
Table 8.11 - Proportion of criterion i andj and the definition 180
Table 8.12 - An example of weights determination using the proportional method 181
Table 8.13 - Pairwise comparison matrix 182
Table 8.14 - Actual and estimated value of the half of matrix 183
Table 11.1 - The 2001 socio-economic variable for passenger demand model 225
Table 11.2 - Some results of model calibration 227
Table 11.3 - The 2001 socio-economic variables and freight demand data 230
Table 11.4 - Coefficient of correlation between variables 231
Table 11.5 - Hourly distributions based on Indian data 237
Table 11.6 - Observed and modelled traffic volume 238
Table 11.7 - Summary of travel statistics 246
Table 12.1 - Traffic volumes Data 255
Table 12.2 - The 2001 socio-economic data considered in the model 257
Table 12.3 - The assigned simple gravity model 258
Table 12.4 - The assigned improved gravity model 259
Table 12.5 - Correlation coefficients between assigned matrices 261

ix
 Glossary

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ADT Annual Daily Traffic
A}IP Analytic Hierarchy Process
AST Appraisal Summary Table
AON All-Or-Nothing
BCR Benefit Cost Ratio
BIT Benefit Incidence Table
BTCE Bureau of Transport and Communications Economic
BTE Bureau of Transport Economic
CA Conjoint Analysis
CBA Cost Benefit Analysis
CI Consistency Index
COBA Cost Benefit Analysis
CR Consistency Ratio
CRITIC Criteria Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation
CRN Criteria Relationship Network
EU European Union
GC Generalised Cost
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GRDP Gross Regional Domestic Product
HDM Highway Development and Management
IIHCM Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual
IRI International Roughness Index
IRR Internal Rate of Return
MADM Multiple Attribute Decision Making
MAJ{P Multiplicative Analytic Hierarchy Process
MAVT Multiattribute Value Theory
MCA Multicriteria Analysis
MCDM Multicriteria Decision Making
MNL Multinomial Logit
MODM Multiple Objective Decision Making
NATA New Approach to Appraisal
NL Nested Logit

x
NPV Net Present Value
OD Origin Destination
PRODEM Probability Deviation Model
RAHP Revised Analytic Hierarchy Process
RI Random Consistency Index
RD Road Deterioration
RUE Road User Effects
SAW Simple Additive Weighting
SEE Social and Environmental effects
WE Work Effects
WTP Willingness to Pay

xi
 Summary

The road network is utilised daily by communities and plays an important role in the
economic development and defence system of a nation. Transport planning is essential in road
network development to assist decision makers in selecting alternatives to be considered and
in explaining the reasons for selecting an alternative to the public. Evaluation and transport
demand modelling are the basis of transport planning. In the evaluation step, alternatives are
analysed in order to value the merit of alternatives and to decide when the selected
alternative/s should be implemented. Transport demand modelling is applied to estimate the
effects of alternatives on transport demand. The development of an evaluation system and
transport demand model in this research accounts for several factors usually found in
developing countries such as the lack of qualified professional planners and technical
resources, reliability and availability of data, and stability of land use structure and economic
condition.

There are two main methods for transport projects evaluation, cost-benefit analysis (CBA)
and multicriteria analysis (MCA). In this research, MCA is selected for road network
planning in developing countries for several reasons: (1) MCA need not to convert the
impacts of the planned project to money values, so that it reduces the need for other
modelling processes such as value of time modelling and in turn it reduces the need of
additional data, modelling effort and cost; (2) decreasing economic growth happens in some
developing countries, so that the use of social rates based on an optimum economic growth
framework may be unsuitable; (3) transport project evaluation will be characterised by a
plurality of decision makers, ideas, and preferences, CBA cannot accommodate political
preference in the analysis; and (4) MCA can still accommodate CBA in the analysis.

This research developed a multicriteria analysis method for road project evaluation in
developing countries with Indonesia as a study case. In the developed evaluation system, the
structure of the multicriteria analysis including criteria, sub-criteria, and their unit values are
given. Simple additive weighting (SAW) (which is widely applied) is used in aggregating all
criteria. To value non-monetised criteria (which will be done by experts), the Analytical
Hierarchy Process is applied. The judgment scale of A}IIP is modified to increase consistency
of subjective judgments. A new model called the Proportional Model (which is easy to use,
transparent and flexible) is developed to determine subjective criteria weights. To represent

xii
public views (which are often not utilised in developing countries), a new objective criteria
weights detennination model called PRODEM (PRObability DEviation Model) is developed.
PRODEM has better performance than other objective criteria weight determination models.
Group decision-making is determined using correlations between subjective judgments of
decision makers to increase transparency level of the decision.

In this research, three transport demand models are developed. The first two models consider
that origin destination data for both passenger and goods are available. The third model
considers that there are only socio-economic data available. The first model is passenger
demand model. The passenger demand model is developed to eliminate the main drawback of
the traditional four-step model by improving trip generation model elasticity, so that it can
take into account the effects of road conditions on passenger transport demand. All the steps
of the four-step model are integrated by extending Evans's (1976) combined trip distribution
and assignment model. The second model is a freight demand model. The freight demand
model applies direct demand model because freight transport routes are usually fixed. The
freight demand model is developed to improve the deficiencies of the traditional direct
demand model by improving the structure and the estimation process. The third model is a
structured traffic count based model. The model is estimated using socio-economic variables
and traffic count data only. The model developed in this research improves the deficiencies of
previous structured traffic count based model. This model is considered suitable for
developing countries as it can be applied using minimum costs, meet the requirement of
continuous planning, and can take into account the effects of road projects on transport
demand.

The first two models are combined and applied to estimate inter sub-province passenger and
freight demand models in Central Java (Indonesia), and also to evaluate Central Java road
planning undertaken by the Ministry of Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia.
The third model is applied to estimate traffic volumes on main routes in Central Java road
network. The applications of those three models indicate that they perform better than the
traditional models.

xiii
 Declaration

I declare that this thesis does not incorporate without acknowledgment any material
previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university; and that to the best of my
knowledge it does not contain any materials previously published or written by another
person except where due reference is made in the text.

Amilia Aldian

Date:

xiv
 Acknowledgments

This thesis would not be possible to be written without encouragement, assistant and support
of a number of people and institution.

First, I would like to thank and appreciate Professor Michael Taylor for supporting me in
applying scholarship and admitting me as his research student. I also would like to thank for
his great and encouraging supervision, and for giving me an opportunity to meet and
collaborate with transport experts within Transport System Centre as well as outside the TSC.

I also would like to use this opportunity to thank and appreciate the following persons and
institutions:

University of South Australia and Transport System Centre for the President Scholarship
award;
Professor Derek Scrafton for his encouraging comments and suggestions;
The Land Transport Education and Training Centre of Indonesia for allowing to pursue
my study;
Dr Rocco Zito, Dr Wen Long Yue, Dr Stuart Clement, Dr Raluca, Dr Frank Primerano
and Dr Nicholas for their assistance and support;
All research students at the TSC for a wonderful friendship; and
All my colleagues in Indonesia for their technical supports.

I am sincerely grateful to my wife for her invaluable support and my daughters for being nice
and good little girls. Thanks are also given to my late father, mother, brothers and sister for
their support and encouragement. I dedicate this thesis to my late father, who passed away in
Indonesia during my study in Adelaide.

xv
 List of Publications

Aldian, A and Taylor, M A P (2001). Selecting priority junction traffic models to determine
U-turn capacity at median openings. Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for
Transportation Studies, EASTS 4th International Conference, Hanoi, October, 3 (2), pp.101-
113. (referred paper).

Aldian, A and Taylor, M A P (2003). Multicnteria-nested model to forecast classified traffic

using low cost information. Proceedings of the 25th Conference of Australian Institutes of
Transport Research (CAITRO3). December, Adelaide (Transport Systems Centre, University
of South Australia: Adelaide).

Aldian, A and Taylor, M A P (2003). Fuzzy multicriteria analysis for inter-city travel demand
modelling. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, vol. 5, pp.1294-
1307. (referred paper)

Aldian, A (2003). Analysis of travel demand in developing countries: A Fuzzy Multiple

attribute decision making approach. Papers of the 26th Australasian Transport Research
Forum (N Z Institute of Highway Technology Wellington.). (referred paper)

Aldian, A and Taylor, M A P (2004). Spatial structure effects on intercity freight demand in
developing countries: model and application. Papers of the 27th Australasian Transport
Research Forum. September, Adelaide. CD-ROM, Paper no 59. (Transport Systems Centre,
University of South Australia: Adelaide). (referred paper)

Aldian, A and Taylor, M A P (2005). A consistent method to determine flexible criteria

weights for multicriteria transport project evaluation in developing countries. Journal of the
Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies (in press). (referred paper)

xvi
 CHAPTER ONE

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Research Background: Evaluation System

The road transport system is generally the most frequent used transport facility. Road
transport affects daily activities of communities; it has capability to distribute people and
goods in a door-to-door basis. The road transport system is utilised by communities to be able
to do their activities such as education, work, business, etc. The integration of different level
of networks in the system, that includes urban, regional and national networks, could expand
those activities to higher levels and become part of the basis of economic development of a
nation. The road transport system can also promote underdeveloped areas by opening up
access to those areas to more developed areas and enlarging opportunities. In general, the road
transport system is capable of determining the land use shape and concentration of
communities and economic activities.

The road transport system touches almost all aspects of activities of all members of
communities including individuals, companies, governments, etc. This system itself is a part
of a bigger system called the transport system. Therefore the road transport system may be
considered as a complex system where a failure of a point in the system could affect the
performance of the whole system. Therefore transport planning is an essential part of road
transport system development in particular and whole transport system development in
general.

Transport planning could help decision makers in selecting alternatives to be considered and
to ensure that the selected alternative/s is/are the best solutions for a specific problem. For
decision makers, transport planning is also a mean to explain the reasons behind the selection
of alternative/s to the public or a particular community (Taylor & Chambers 1999).

As a complex system, an ordinary planning process is considered nOt appropriate enough to

be applied for transport planning. A dynamic or continuous planning process is needed for
transport system planning to be able to respond to any changes in both internal and external

1
environments (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994; Taylor, Bonsall & Young 2000; Taylor &
Chambers 1999).

One of main steps in transport planning is evaluation. In the evaluation step, alternative
solutions, projects or plans are analysed and compared so that decision makers will have
relevant information to prioritise or select the alternatives, determine the merit of the
alternatives, and decide when the selected alternative should be implemented (Lichfield,
Kettle & Whitebread 1975; Bristow & Nellthrop 2000). In transportation projects, the
evaluation step is commonly referred as project appraisal (Mackie & Nellthrop 2001).

Several criteria are usually employed in the evaluation process including economic, social,
political and environmental criteria (Dickey & Miller 1984). There are two main methods for
transport projects evaluation, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and multicriteria analysis (MCA).
Cost-benefit analysis converts all impacts of a planned project to money values. Multicriteria
analysis need not convert the impacts of the planned project to money values, but it can be
applied when both monetised and non-monetised impacts are present.

Cost-benefit analysis method is applied in most developed countries; in these countries,

criteria not expressed in monetary terms are commonly evaluated separately. Several
countries applied muciticriteria analysis; in these countries, the cost-benefit analysis is usually
one of the criteria (Hayashi & Morisugi 2000).

Transport projects evaluation will be characterised by a plurality of actors, ideas, and interests
(Giorgi & Tandon 2002), so that an evaluation method that is understandable to each actors in
decision-making and can follow a situation where the decision is made based on consensus
and compromise is needed.

In developing countries, cost-benefit analysis is applied for road projects evaluation. The
application of cost-benefit analysis in developing countries only considers direct benefits and
costs expressed in monetary terms. When criteria not expressed in monetary terms are
included, then multicriteria analysis should be applied (Odoki & Kerali 2000).

The non-monetised criteria are commonly no less important than monetised criteria, so that
they should be considered in road projects evaluation. Thus there is a need for a theoretical
basis by which planners can use it to encourage policy makers to include non-monetised

2
criteria in the evaluation process. Consequently, a need for a multicriteria evaluation method
appears.

In this research, MCA analysis is selected for road network planning in developing countries
for several reasons: (1) MCA need not convert the impacts of the planned project to money
values, so that it reduces the need of other modelling process such as value of time modelling
and in turn it reduces the need of additional data, modelling effort and cost; (2), decreasing
economic growth happen in some developing countries, so that the use of social rate based on
optimum economic growth framework may be unsuitable; (3) transport project evaluation will
be characterised by plurality of decision makers, ideas, and preferences, CBA cannot
accommodate political preference in the analysis; and (4) MCA can still accommodate CBA
in the analysis where CBA result is one of criteria.

Amongst multicriteria analysis methods, several authors (see for example Tsamboulas, Yiotis
& Panou 1999; Bana e Costa 2001; Sayers, Jessop & Hills 2003) recommended the use of
additive methods, especially the linear additive model (simple additive weighting, 'SAW').
Furthermore, Tsamboulas, Yiotis & Panou (1999) indicated that Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP), which may be seen as a variant of SAW, could satisfy the requirements of transport
projects evaluation and the outcome of AMP method might be considered as compromise
solution.

The main criticisms of AHP are related to rank abnormality when using the original AHP
(Belton & Gear 1983) and the judgment scale for quantifying criteria (Finan & Hurley 1999;
Beynon 2002). It is also considered that most decision makers (which are usually elected
politicians) as well as public community, would have difficulty in understanding the
application of AHP.

This research improves the judgment scale of AHP by modifying the Finan and Hurley (1999)
method. The AHP is utilised to value or quantify non-monetised criteria where experts who
have ability to understand the AHP method do this process.

To determine criteria weights, a model called the Proportional Model is developed. This
method is relatively easy to understand and follows the main principle of the simple additive
weighting method.

3
Public participation in transport projects evaluation is commonly not utilised in developing
countries. Public views are considered to be objective. To represent public views, an objective
criteria weights determination model called PRODEM is proposed in this research. Finally,
group decision-making using proportional method is developed. The group decision-making
using the Proportional Method is more transparent than other method as each decision maker
understands his or her position in a group decision-making.

1.2 Research Background: Transport Demand Model

Because the major part of benefits and costs of road projects are derived from the benefits and
costs of travellers or users, then transport demand or road traffic estimation model is an
important part in the planning process of road and also other transport facilities. The transport
demand or traffic estimation model must be of primary interest amongst transport planners
before conducting any planning and evaluation of road and any other transportation projects.
A good transport demand or traffic forecasting is something that will ensure the success of the
process, as it will always be used in other parts of the process, from problem identification to
evaluation of solutions.

Forecasting transport demand and road traffic, especially for urban areas to support transport
planning began in the mid 1950s (Boyce in the Foreword of Oppenheim 1995). It means there
have been many transport demand models developed and also software available to support
the computation process.

Although many improvements have been made in transport demand and traffic forecasting
techniques, the study of transport demand is an area that continues to grow. Researchers have
spent much time and resources in developing transport demand forecasting models that will
best fit a particular area or country, while practitioners have always attempted to select the
best available model to be applied in their study area.

The applications of transport demand modelling in transport project appraisal in particular

still face many challenges. The principle challenge is that there are wide gaps between
forecast estimates of transport demand and reality in both developed and developing
countries.

4
A survey by Skamris and Flyberg (1997) reported that the difference of traffic forecasts and
actual developments in large transport infrastructure projects reaches values of 20% to 60%.
The sample of the survey was a set of developed countries including the UK, Denmark and
Sweden as well as a set of developing countries.

A failure in forecasting transport demand could lead to a wrong decision, and when such
wrong decisions are applied to a large project then the impact could even bigger than the
project budget itself, both economically and socially. This condition has more consequences
in developing countries where the projects are commonly financed through loans of foreign
agencies.

The error in transport demand forecasting results is believed to drive many governments to
avoid formal transport demand modelling (Trujilo, Quinet & Estache 2002). The reason is of
course as simple as that if the applications of a formal and good transport demand model,
which are often too costly for developing countries, cannot guarantee in achieving a good
forecasting results, then there is no value in applying it.

The closeness of the forecasting value to the real world is the main aim of transport demand
model development. This strongly depends on the adequacy of model structure, accuracy of
current data and certainty level of forecasting value of exogenous variables (Trujilo, Quinet &
Estache 2002).

From the model structure point of view, there are many available approaches and models that
have been applied; started from very simple models to well-structured ones. Based on the
research recommendations from the state-wide travel demand forecasting workshop (2001) in
the USA, the problem with travel demand model applications is that there is a tendency to
apply a single approach for different needs. There are different needs between areas due to
different characteristics both among within and individual areas.

Developing a model that will be best suited to a particular area is becoming essential in
transport planning process. Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994) also suggest that transport
modelling and decision-making could be combined in different ways depending on local
experience, traditions and expertise.

In developing countries, the main ongoing problem in modelling transport demand is

probably data accuracy and availability. A well-structured and adapted model often cannot be

5
implemented in developing countries due to lack of data and other problems such as resource
needs for surveys and delays in collecting the data (Trujilo, Quinet & Estache 2002).

Talvatie (2000) also stated that development of formal transport demand models in
developing countries is often impractical due to the lack travel data and data systems. This
tends to result in the application of very simple forecasting models where the baseline traffic
volumes are increased using a combination of travel rate of anticipated growth in the GNP
and demand elasticity.

Transport demand modelling is a complicated task because its accuracy depends on the
accuracy of its inputs. The inputs are not only data to calibrate the model, but also models to
estimate thevalue of external factors (e.g. population, income, economic activity and car
ownership), and models to determine travel impedances, which are mostly provided in the
appraisal system (e.g. speed, vehicle operating cost and value of time).

Mackie and Preston (1998) believed that the overestimation of the transport demand
modelling inputs (e.g. speed, population) contributes to error and bias in transport project
appraisal. Other factors believed to contribute to error and bias in transport project appraisal
are also related to transport demand modelling, those are underestimate of the reaction of rival
transport operators and infrastructure owners, and failure to take into account the slow build-
up in demand.

In the case of transportation project appraisal, the inaccuracy of demand estimation might be
because the models used to estimate travel impedance provided by an appraisal system are
unsuitable for a particular area. It also might be because the transport demand model and the
appraisal system are inconsistent. For instance because of unavailability of resources, travel
distances may be used as the travel impedance instead of travel impedances required by the
appraisal system (e.g. speed, vehicle operating cost, value of time, etc.).

The problems of transportation projects, especially road projects in developing countries,

seem more complicated as they start from a very basic one, the unavailability and inaccuracy
of current data. In some transportation project appraisal methods, the transport demand model
does not even take into account travel impedance at all as they apply very simple models such
as geometric growth factor. This means that changes of travel costs will have no effects on
transport demand. In turn, this could lead to more serious situation, inaccuracy of transport
demand estimation and wrong decisions in the appraisal process.

6
The need of transport demand models that are suitable for developing countries is strong, as
the consequences of forecasting inaccuracy are also relatively higher than those in developed
countries as the projects are commonly financed through loans from foreign countries or
agencies.

In this research, three transport demand models are developed. The first two models assume
that origin destination data for both passenger and goods are available. The third model
considers that there are only socio-economic data available.

The first model is passenger demand model. The passenger demand model is developed to
eliminate the main drawback of the traditional four-step model by improving trip generation
model elasticity, so that can take into account the effects of road conditions on passenger
transport demand. All the steps of four-step model are integrated by extending Evans (1976)
combined trip distribution and assignment model.

The second model is a freight demand model. The freight demand model applies direct
demand model because freight transport routes are usually fixed. The freight demand model is
developed to improve the deficiencies of the traditional direct demand model by improving
the structure and the estimation process.

The third model is a structured traffic count based model. The model is estimated using socio-
economic variables and traffic count data only. The model developed in this research
improves the deficiencies of previous structured traffic count based model. This model is
considered suitable for developing countries as it can be applied using minimum costs, meet
the requirement of continuous planning, and can take into account the effects of road projects
on transport demand.

The first two models are combined and applied to estimate inter sub-province passenger and
freight demand models in Central Java (Indonesia), and to evaluate Central Java road
planning undertaken by Ministry of Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia. The
third model is applied to estimate traffic volumes on main routes in Central Java road
network. The applications of those three models indicate that they perform better than the
previous models.

7
1.3 Objectives of Research

There are two main aims of this research. The first aim is to develop a multicriteria analysis
model for road network planning, which is suitable for situations found in developing
countries such as lack of resources; three important keys in the model development are
criteria determination, valuation of alternatives with respect to criteria and valuation of
criteria weights. Second is to develop transport demand models that can meet several
requirements found in developing countries such as: can be applied using minimum data and
resources (costs and technical expertise), can take into account the effects of road network
conditions on transport demand and are compatible with local situations; the transport demand
models developed can be applied in situations where origin destination matrix is both
available and unavailable.

The objectives of the research are:

To gain knowledge of the need of transport planning and transport projects evaluation.
To gain knowledge of the structure of planning for transport system.
To gain knowledge of the method for transport projects evaluation.
To gain knowledge of cost-benefit analysis and multicriteria analysis
To establish a basis for road projects evaluation using multicriteria analysis.
To develop a road projects evaluation system using multicritena analysis model.
To gain knowledge of the needs for transport demand model in transport projects
evaluation.
To gain knowledge of the various techniques applied in transport demand modelling.
To develop transport demand models to support road project evaluation in developing
countries using multicriteria analysis.

1.4 Organisation of the Thesis

To be able to cover all issues raised in the research background and achieve all the aims and
objectives of the research, the methodology of the research are as follows:
Chapter Two describes the connections between transport planning, project evaluation,
and transport demand models. It begins with the general definition of planning, the

8
 decision-making approaches, and the conditions of transport system, before describing
transport planning system, transport projects evaluation, and transport demand model.
Chapter Three describes the practices of evaluation system and transport demand
modelling in both developed and developing countries.
Chapter Four discusses cost benefit analysis application in transport project evaluation. It
covers the main principles and the criticisms of cost-benefit analysis. Several extensions
of cost-benefit analysis are also discussed.
Chapter Five discusses multicriteria analysis application in transport project evaluation. It
begins with the basic formulation of multicriteria analysis and discusses multicritena
analysis methods. Some applications of multicriteria analysis are given. This chapter also
discusses the methods to determine criteria weights and Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP). It closes with the criticisms of multicriteria analysis.
Chapter Six explains the four-step model. It starts with the preparation of modelling
process. Detailed explanation of each step of the four-step model is given. The criticisms
and improvements of the four-step model are described.
Chapter Seven discusses unconventional transport demand models and other approaches
in transport demand models. It covers the traffic count based models, elasticity-based
traffic forecasting models, and other approaches that can be applied in transport demand
modelling including discrete choice models, neural network and fuzzy logic.
Chapter Eight presents the development of a multicriteria analysis method for road project
evaluation in developing countries, using Indonesia as a case study. It starts by describing
the Indonesian planning process and continues by determining criteria and structure of
multicriteria analysis for road network planning in Indonesia. The development of the
method consists of selection of normalisation methods, development of objective criteria
weights determination method, modification of the AHP judgment scale, and development
of subjective criteria weights determination method.
Chapter Nine presents the development of passenger transport demand model for a
situation where an origin destination matrix is available. The Simultaneous Transportation
Equilibrium Model (STEM) is described as a starting point. The developed model, which
is an extension of Evans (1976) combined distribution and assignment model is discussed.
Chapter Ten presents the development of freight demand model for a situation where an
origin destination matrix is available. It begins by reviewing approaches in freight demand
modelling. The developed model, which is an improvement of structure and estimation of
direct demand models, is explained.
Chapter Eleven presents calibration processes for passenger transport demand model and
freight demand model. Both models are combined and applied to evaluate the
9
 performance of Central Java road network and the Central Java road network planning
undertaken by the Ministry of Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia.
Chapter Twelve presents the development of a transport demand model using traffic count
data. The improvements of the structured approach of traffic count based model are
explained. Calibration of the improved model using traffic volumes data on two main
routes in Central Java road network is discussed. The possible extension of the improved
model to capture congestion effects is explained.
Chapter Thirteen provides conclusions of the thesis and possible extensions of the
research.

10
 CHAPTER TWO

2 TRANSPORT PLANNING, PROJECT

EVALUATION, AND TRANSPORT DEMAND MODEL

2.1 Introduction

Transportation is one of the primary needs of most people. Transportation supports economic
development, and plays an important part in social and political activities of most
communities. Transport is also a key determinant in a nation defence system.

The need for transport is usually parallel with the size of the community and their level of
socio-economic activities. The higher the size of community the higher is the transport need,
and the higher the socio-economic activities the higher are the transport need.

The need of transport, in many cases (especially in urban context) has been moving faster
than the ability of providing transport service. Conmiunities in many urban regions around the
world are facing traffic congestion in their everyday life. On the other hand, the need for
transport service cannot easily be fulfilled by introducing new facilities since land and
resources are limited.

There is then a need of a tool to be able to produce solutions regarding transport need that can
as far as possible meet the need of affected parties. As in any other field the tool is commonly
called planning and in transport field it is then called transport planning.

Transport planning is applied widely in many countries, although the applications may be
vary between countries. In general there is a common theme regarding the transport planning
practice. This chapter reviews the characteristics of transport planning and factors considered
in the development of transport planning.

11
2.2 Definition of Planning

Every level in a society, from individual to a very complex system, certainly has to make
decisions in order to achieve its goals. The decision could affect both internal and external
environments of the system. Thus, recognising the possible effects of the decision is an
essential part of decision-making process.

An otherwise easy decision-making process will be hard if the decision makers have not
prepared to handle any situations they might have to face. It is like a driver who must go to a
particular destination for the first time, where the destination has many routes to reach. If s/he
has no map or has no one to ask, then s/he might go through all the routes until the destination
is reached.

After achieving the goal, the driver then will gain experiences to deal with such situation and
would prepare necessary actions to handle it and might also consider other possibilities that
may happen in the future. This will assist the driver in making decision.

This process will be repeated again and again, probably with different situations as both
internal elements (e.g. the map) and the external elements (e.g. the route, the destination) are
changed. For example, the driver will take the usual route to reach a prior known destination,
but this decision may fail if the route is blocked for a particular reason such as an incident.
Then, the driver will take another route as s/he did not know about and could not predict the
accident. The driver then gains more experience and could prepare adaptable and adjustable
actions.

The preparation of actions done by the decision makers is called planning. As Chambers and
Taylor (1999) stated, planning can be seen as a tool for, or the rationale behind, the decision-
making process.

The decision that has to be made by the driver above suggests that the decision making
process is very complex and probabilistic as the elements involved and variables considered
are changed, so that no single alternative is certain. In a system or complex system which has
both internal and external interactions and uncertainties, the decision making process will be
even harder and also means much work for the planners to develop good planning strategies.

12
In a complex and dynamic system where long-term survival of the system is essential and
many parties are involved, planning itself must be not a static thing; planning must also be a
system. As a system, planning can then be implemented in a dynamic way, so that planners
can continuously review every step in the planning process to cope with new situations. As a
system, planning can look at the future conditions with which policies can be developed and
used to influence and satisfy the needs, expectations or wants of many other systems like
community, stake-holders and other parties.

For those reasons then the planning concept significantly moves from a narrow traditional
concept and method, which is based on a static overall development master plan, to a dynamic
process as a result of the systems approach to problems. The dynamic process of planning can
follow continual change and accommodate the changes of goals and policies to optimise the
real world system under consideration (Chambers & Taylor 1999).

The dynamic process of planning is essential in strategic planning level where it has an
outwards looking focus, which means it has to deal with current and future situations of both
internal and external environments in order to maximise benefits and minimise disbenefits,
and must also be able to remain relevant and viable in the ever changing environment
(Chambers & Taylor 1999).

Neufville (2003) introduced a systems analysis called dynamic strategic planning for
designing and implementing new technology or large-scale engineering projects. Dynamic
strategic planning is defined as a planning process that can flexibly be operated to adjust
easily over time the actual situations and conditions as they arise, either to avoid bad
situations or take advantage of new opportunities.

The dynamic strategic planning requires planners to be able to deal proactively with risk by
identifying and building in the most valuable flexibility. Planners must also be able to
anticipate and deal with the interests and powers of the range of major stakeholders in the
consequence of the plan.

2.3 Decision Making Styles

As pointed out before, planning is a tool for or rationale behind the decision-making
processes, and different individuals or systems could have different methods or styles in the
13
decision-making process. Planners must then recognise the style of decision-making to be
able to build planning structures that are consistent with the decision-making style. According
to Chambers and Taylor (1999) there are three factors to be considered in grouping decision-
making styles:

The type, frequency, structure and complexity of the decision

The characteristics, abilities and requirements of the decision makers, and
The institutional and political contexts in which the decisions are needed

Meyer and Miller (2001) identified five major conceptual models of the decision-making
process, which are:

(1) The rationale actor model;

(2) The satisficing model;
(3) The incrementalist model;
(4) The institutional process model; and
(5) The political bargaining model.

Meanwhile Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994) adapted decision-making for technological

forecasting and social change into six different styles. A brief description of each style is as
follows:

Decision based on master plan. The decisions made in this style are based on
interpretations of master plan, which is normally prepared with a good deal of care and
attention of the future. This style may be reasonable unless the environment is stable, but
the economic, social and technological environments can change faster than the plan can
adapt. Many developing countries have adopted this approach, which is inappropriate to
their changing environment.
Normative decision theoiy or substantive rationality. This is sometimes termed as the
systems approach to planning. The decisions made in this style are based on the utility
and probability of occurrence of each alternative and scenario. Quantification is essential
in this model, as is understanding and specifying the objective function and the
constraints defining the solution space. However in real life there are many elements of
the objective function or constraints that may be difficult to quantify or to convert into
common units of measurement. The positive aspect of this style is that a good deal about

14
 the problem is learnt in the process; while its main drawback is in delivering results on
time and with acceptable accuracy.
Behavioural decision theory. This style recognises that often decision makers are not
utility maximisers but simply satisficers. Having found an acceptable solution, the better
solutions searching process often ceases.
Group decision-making. The decision in this style is based on the contribution of
knowledge and expertise of individuals within this group. This style is commonly applied
in areas where committees rule. Persuasive or powerful members may be dominant in the
decision making process
Adaptive decision-making. This style is usually used in legislative decision-making and
diplomacy, particularly in any decision groups where survival becomes the dominant
objective. This style is more flexible than the group decision-making where negotiation
and compromise between groups are required to reach decision. A study as well as a
technique may be used to support arguments of any groups.
Mixed-mode decision-making strategies. This treats the decision-making process as
important as the action selected. This style combines analysis, persuasion, bargaining and
political strategies in different arenas and under different goals. It is considered to be a
realistic approach as it accepts the shift of the goals and arenas as part of the process.
This model of decision-making process is considered to be suitable for transport decision-
making.

2.4 Transport System

Transportation involves many components in its operation. Those components form a

hierarchy and relationship so that it is commonly called the transportation system. Those
components, which are also subsystems of the transportation system, start at the lowest level
such as individual vehicles or travellers, facilities and terminals, and modal networks/services.
This lowest level leads to a higher hierarchy and form an integrated transportation system
such as transit service, freight networks, bicycle networks, etc. Even within a transportation
subsystem, we can still find a hierarchy. For example a road network can still be broken down
by functional classification (Meyer & Miller, 2001). Thus, generally, there is no exact
definition of transport system. Its definition strongly depends on the perspective of the actors
in the transport system.

15
System itself has several meanings. A system is usually defined based on the discipline in
which system is attached. The definitions of system of different disciplines have common
characteristics. Systems usually consist of several elements and each element contributes to
interrelated tasks in achieving the purpose of the system (Meyer & Miller 2001). From the
above definition then the universe, the world, a human being, a mosquito, and even an atom
are all systems in their own right.

Transport itself is a subsystem of urban and regional system consisting other subsystems such
as water, land use, telecommunications, etc. The urban and regional subsystems themselves
are subsystems of higher level of system such as state economic system, national economic
system, and the highest one is the global market (Meyer & Miller 2001).

Those hierarchies of systems change overtime and strongly interact with each other, and also
connecting themselves to other systems. Thus the transport system is a very complex and
adaptive system, which means a change in one of internal elements of transport system, can
affect both the transport system itself and its external environments. In contrast, any changes
of elements of external environments can also affect the transport system.

2.5 Transport Planning

The importance and complexity of transport system in a society, and the requirement that the
transportation system should meet the specified demand leads to a common practice that
planning of transportation system must be conducted in order to guide any actions or
decision-makings regarding the operation and development of transportation system.

Transport planning was previously concerned with highway development, where it was more
concentrated on increasing capacity of the system to serve the predicted levels of demand or
often called the 'predict and provide' approach. It was then realised that the 'predict and
provide' approach cannot cope with the new changes in socio-economic and political
situations related to transport system.

According to Banister (2001) there are three great changes in socio-economic and political
situations that should be considered by transport planners. These are the huge growth in
congestion as a result of high level of car ownership, the involvement of the private sector in
the provision of transport service through government policy and privatisation, and the
16
increasing awareness of environmental impacts of transport such as global warming. This
leads to the development of a new approach of transport planning that is more concentrated
on managing travel demand by limiting mobility through pricing, regulation, and other control
strategies. On managing travel demand, planners must also ensure that people have
accessibility to their socio-economic activities at appropriate levels.

The new approach of transport planning requires a flexible or dynamic planning process. The
application of planning in a dynamic process means that transport problems are seen as a
system, so that transport conditions and affected parties would always be in a planning as it is
elastic to any new conditions. The dynamic process of transport planning could also ensure
that the solutions decided and applied today will not create another problems in the future.

There are methodologies that can be considered to apply the basic principals of a dynamic
planning process in dealing with transport system problems. The methodologies presented in
Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994), Taylor, Young and Bonsall (1996) and Chambers and Taylor
(1999) have generally the same basic principles, although the stages, sequence and the terms
are different. Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994) called this process as continuous planning
process; Taylor, Young and Bonsall (1996) called it systems planning process, while
Chambers and Taylor (1999) called it cyclic planning process

Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994) stated that the application of transport planning models on
their own and even a rational decision-making framework do not solve transport problem.
Transport problems need an adaptive or mixed-mode decision-making styles, which can only
be accommodated by a dynamic planning process.

Additionally they indicated that a dynamic planning process based on adaptive or mixed-
mode decision-making styles would be able to continually redefine problems, arenas and
goals as planners recognise and understand them better, identify new solution strategies,
respond to political and technological changes and enhance our modelling capabilities
through training research and experience. The following figure is an example of continuous
planning (dynamic planning) process.

17
 Figure 2.1 - Continuous planning process
Source: Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994), P. 29

The introduction of monitoring system has enabled the planning process to be dynamically
operated. It can adapt to a new condition, and hence could handle any unplanned situations.
On the other hand, the introduction of a monitoring system also requires that all steps in the
planning process are adaptable, which also mean that all steps must be able to be operated
quickly.

Transport planning no longer deals with the satisfaction of travel demands only, but must also
deal with an overall improvement in community life and involvement of community in the
process. It is realised that many failures of transport planning practice in the past were
because transport planning was seen as a static closed process of matching supply capacities
with demand level.

18
To understand the interaction of a transport system with other sub-systems, and most
importantly to able to translate different needs and goals of parties involved in the system,
transport planners must equip themselves with a basic knowledge of various disciplines or
must integrate their works with other planners in other systems. With this basic knowledge,
transport planners may then be able to develop transport plans that can cope with an ever-
changing world or the uncertainties, leading to a better evaluation process.

In the structure of continuous planning (dynamic planning), it is common that the modelling
step is placed before the evaluation step and the evaluation step is placed before the
implementation solution step. From figure 2.1 (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994, p. 29), it can be
seen that the other steps of the continuous planning process are directed toward the modelling
step where alternatives of solution are tested (see also Taylor, Young & Bonsall 1996, and
Chambers & Taylor 1999).

It could be stated that the modelling step and the evaluation step form the gateway to the
decision and the quality of the decisions depending on them. To be able to produce good
decisions these two steps therefore must be backed by other steps in the planning process
since the better the inputs the better should be the decision

2.6 Transport projects evaluation

A decision process is needed when an individual or system has several options to choose
from. All the styles of decision-making are related to selection of an alternative or
recommending a solution from a set of alternatives or solutions. In any situation, there will be
at least two options, between taking and not taking the only alternative/option. Planning as a
decision tool also faces the problem of selection from a set of alternatives. For this reason,
there will always be an evaluation step in any planning structure. The practice of evaluation
began in the 1950s when large-scale programmes for urban and regional development took
place (Giorgi & Tandon 2002).

The evaluation step is a crucial process in the transport planning process. The decision-
making in the planning process depends greatly on this step. Therefore, in carrying out its
function the evaluation step must be backed by other steps in the planning process. The
application of mixed-mode decision-making strategies in transport planning needs a support
of evaluation process that is understandable to each of the actors in the decision making
19
process since it will be characterised by a plurality of actors, ideas, and interest (Giorgi &
Tandon 2002). Thus evaluation of transport projects must be able to follow a situation where
the decision is made based on consensus and compromise.

The evaluation step in transportation projects, or commonly called as project appraisal, is

necessary to be undertaken before project implementation because resources are limited while
these resources could also be used for many other potential alternatives (Mackie & Nellthorp
2001).

In transport planning, decision-making commonly refers to the selection of an alternative

from a set of alternatives, or prioritising those alternatives. The decisions are usually taken
after evaluating those alternatives using a set of considered criteria in the evaluation step.

The definition of project evaluation could be varied depending on the situations of the project
and the stakeholders. Generally speaking, the main task of the evaluation step in planning is
in assessing the comparative merits of different courses of action. In this step, alternatives of
plan or project are analysed in order to seek their comparative impacts, both positive and
negative. Then, the analysis will be done on the basis of a logical framework of the findings.
Such a logical framework is essential, as evaluation must provide information on all parties
involved in and affected by the planlproject (Lichfield, Kettle & Whitbread 1975). In more
specific terms, Bristow and Nellthrop (2000) stated that transport project evaluation is
generally seen as a tool that provides relevant information to decision-makers in order to
prioritise projects within a programme; choosing between alternative solutions to a common
problem; determining social value of funding of particular projects; and deciding when an
investment should be undertaken.

Transport infrastructure is usually owned publicly, so that transport infrastructure appraisal is

more concerned with achieving a set of social objectives, which typically include economic
efficiency, reduction of environmental impacts, and other objectives related to elements such
as equity, accessibility, long-term cash-flow implications, etc. (Bristow and Nellthrop 2000).
Transport project evaluation could be a part of a broader integrated project. For example road
development is intended to support an area development, which could involve irrigation, new
school buildings, new hospital buildings, shopping centre enlargement, etc. In such situations
transport project evaluation is still needed to ensure that the project achieves its main goal,
which is to the movement of transport users (Dickey & Miller 1984).

20
The changes of approach of transport planning widen the stakeholders and affected parties of
transport planning. In the modern approach of transport planning, the use of quantitative
analysis alone is not enough. Transport project evaluation must apply both quantitative and
qualitative analyses as in fact much transport decision-making is more political (Banister
2001).

The evaluation of transport projects requires a combination of skills, from economic analysis
to political judgment. In this step, recommendation of plan/project/strategy/policy is given
based upon operational, economic, financial and other social aspects (Ortuzar & Willumsen
1994). The evaluation of transport projects in continuous transport planning requires methods
that are adaptable and often quick response.

Many methodologies have been developed for the evaluation process by which transport
planners, engineers and policy makers explain necessary reasons behind the selection to the
public or a particular community by using an evaluation methodology.

There are several methods for transport projects evaluation, but they can be grouped into two
main basic methods, namely cost-benefit analysis and multicriteria analysis. Cost-Benefit
Analysis (CBA) is a method in project appraisal that takes into account the equivalent money
values of the estimated benefits and costs of planned projects to community. Multicriteria
analysis is a method that the impacts of the planned project need not to be converted into
money values. Multicritena analysis method can also be applied when both monetary and
non-monetary impacts present.

2.6.1 Development of alternatives

It is possible to have unlimited alternatives in the transport project evaluation. In such a

situation, a standard or a set of principles is needed to narrow the number of alternatives.
Meyer and Miller (2001) listed six principles for alternatives development. In general those
principles can be summarised that alternatives development should:

1. be defined in terms of their design concept and scope,

2. be directed to a clear statement of the purpose of and need for the project,
3. consider all reasonable options and then be narrowed using appropriate analyses to
focus on the most competitive ones,
21
 4. be structured in a way that decision makers understand the process of trade-offs
among costs, benefits and impacts,
5. define each alternative as competitively as possible, and
6. allow all participants to give inputs and reviews.

Once a set of alternatives has been defined, the evaluation process is ready. Meyer and Miller
(2001) also listed eight characteristics of an effective evaluation in a decision-oriented
planning process. The characteristics allow interested parties to become involved in the
process, summarise the key issues in understandable terms, and guide technical analysis in the
process. In general Tsamboulas, Yiotis and Tanou (1999) suggested that transport evaluation
methodology should be judged using the following characteristics: transparency, simplicity,
robustness, and accountability.

In road projects for example, we could list seven basic alternatives. We should analyse the 'do
nothing' alternative first before analysing the other alternatives, as the alternatives require
comparison of other alternatives and the do nothing alternative. The do nothing alternative is
also needed to ensure that the project is warranted. Those alternatives are: do nothing,
construction, reconstruction, maintenance, combinations of construction, reconstruction, and
maintenance, vehicle alterations, integration with the development schemes, and non-
transportation solutions (Dickey & Miller, 1984).

2.6.2 Identification of impacts

The other important thing in transport project evaluation as well as the development of
objectives and alternatives is identification of impacts consisting benefits and costs. The
impacts of transport projects could be different depending on the objective of the project,
location of the project, and the groups affected by the project.

Generally the impacts of road projects can be classified into economic, social, man-made and
natural environmental, and political concerns (see Table 2.1). We might also break down each
impact in Table 2.1 into more detailed impacts, for example we could show more detailed
time saving impact by person or vehicle, by journey purpose, by distance, by type of vehicle,
etc.

22
 Table 2.1 - Example of types of impacts
1 Economic
(a) User benefits
(i) Cost
(ii) Time
(iii) Safety
(b) "Society"
(i) Cost of construction and maintenance
(ii) Equity in income
(iii) Balance of payments
(c) Shippers (e.g. farmers)
(i) Revenue from product sales
(ii) Cost of inputs
2 Social
(a) Health
(b) Education
3 Man-made environmental
(a) Housing
(b) Water supply
4 Natural environmental
(a) Air
(b) Water
5 Political
(a) Power of ruling party
(b) Riots in local area

Source: Dickey and Miller (1984), p. 7

Another useful way to determine the impacts of transport proj ects is by showing the
functional relationship between incidence groups and impacts. Brown, Milner and Bulman
(2001) gave a principal functional relation between incidence groups and impacts, and
suggested that other relations can be added if we believe that the relations are relevant to the
project under consideration (see Table 2.2).

23
 Table 2.2 Functional relations between incidence groups and impacts

Impacts Incidence Groups

Users Service Infrastructure Non-users Society &
Operators Providers Government
Socio economic impacts
Investment costs x x x
Economic costs x x x x
Safety 'J -..J x x x
Quality x x x x
Employment x x x x
Environment x x x
Regional development x x x x
Social impact x x x x
Public acceptance '.j x x x
Financial viability x

Source Brown, Mimer and Bulman (2001), p. 64

Bristow and Nellthrop (2000) divided transport projects impacts into direct impacts,
environmental impacts, and socio-economic impacts. Direct impacts are divided into
construction costs, disruption costs, land and property costs, maintenance costs, operating
costs, vehicle operating costs, revenues, passenger costs savings, time savings, safety, service
level, information, enforcement, and financing or taxation. Environmental impacts are divided
into noise, vibration, air pollution-local, air pollution-global, severance, visual intrusion, loss
of important sites, resource consumption, landscape, and groundlwater pollution. Socio-
economic impacts are divided into land use, economic development, employment, economic
and social cohesion, international traffic, interoperability, regional policy, conformity to
sector plan, and peripheral distribution.

2.7 Transport Demand Model

One important requirement in transport planning as well as decision making is to understand

the behaviour of the system by which planners can evaluate any alternatives or decisions in
managing a system and their consequences. It is commonly impossible to apply the
alternatives or decisions to the real system in order to understand the behaviour of the system
as well as their impacts since the cost most likely will be very high.

24
To be able to do alternatives evaluation, planners and decision makers then need a simple
representation of the system. This simple representation of the system of real world is
commonly described as model. The accuracy of decisions depends on the ability of the model
in representing the real world. In transportation planning field, the role of models is very
significant. The planners or engineers working on this field must be familiar with transport
model.

Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994) provided broad definition of a model as a simplified

representation of a part of the real world (the system of interest), which concentrates on
certain elements considered important for its analysis from a particular point of view. They
then divided the models into two groups, physical models and abstract models. Those used for
example in architecture or influid mechanics, which are basically aimed at design fall in the
physical model. The abstract models vary from mental models, to formal and abstract
representations of some theory about the system and how it works.

Models can assist in almost every stage of planning. Chambers and Taylor (1999) pointed out
the roles of models in planning that can be summarised as allowing planners to achieve better
insight into the environments, knowing the advantages and disadvantages of alternative plans,
allowing planners to tie together a number of subsystems in order to provide framework for
study and planning of a complete systems, such as cities or even world, and assisting
educational process by giving a student better understanding of the environment/s they are
studying.

On the other hand, Chambers and Taylor (1999) indicated that it is possible for a model to fail
to reflect accurately the true changes that can, and often will occur in the environment, since a
model will not be able to reflect the plethora of factors and effects that are possible in the real
world. So that a model should always be used with caution, and according to Daly and
Ortuzar (1990) there is no model providing a definitive approach to all situations. In addition
Taylor (1999) stated that the requirement of model is different for different problems and
applications as there is variation of detail of output and data needed in each application.

For a model to represent a system, modellers must allow their model to be sensitive to the
behaviour of the system. If an element is particularly sensitive to the effects of other internal
or external elements, which means it is highly subject to change, then the model should be
very dynamic with respect to the element (de la Barra 1989).

25
The use of transport model in transport planning, especially for urban areas, began in the mid
1950s in the United State of America. Models were first used in Detroit and Chicago
Transportation Studies. In the early 1960s, the United Kingdom applied a model to the
London conurbation. In the 1 970s, there were important changes of the models where
economic theory was adopted in order to provide justification and clarification of methods.
The increase of computer power played an important role in the development of models by
which the scale and details of the problems could be greatly expanded. The changes in
transport models were also influenced by the changes of emphasis of transport planning from
provision of capacity to reduction of further transport growth (Bates 2000).

There are many models available to forecast transport demand. But as each country or even
region has its own characteristics, then the need of each country or region is also different.
Developing a model that will be best suited to a particular area is becoming essential in
transport planning process.

According to Crevo (2001), the procedures of travel demand modelling at a state-wide level
typically follows those applied in urban models, although differences exist due to the level of
detail and the characteristics of the model component attributes.

Ortuzar and Willumsen, (1994) also suggest that transport modelling and decision-making
could be combined in different ways depending on local experience, traditions and expertise.
Many studies in many disciplines have shown that there were some differences in culture,
behaviour and economic condition between developed and developing countries, even
between individual developed countries themselves and individual developing countries
themselves. Researchers have been spent much time and resources to develop travel demand
forecasting models that will best fit a particular area or country, while practitioners have
always attempted to select the best available model to be applied in their area of study.

In Indonesia and in other developing countries, there has been little effort in modelling travel
demand in ways compatible with local characteristics of travel in those countries. Usually the
available models and methods are employed in conducting any transport planning processes,
even some times without selecting the best one. A failure in using or selecting a model will
lead to a wrong decision, and when such wrong decisions are applied to a big budget project
such us highway development then the impact could even bigger than the project budget
itself, both economically and socially.

26
Transport demand is traditionally presented in the form of an O-D (origin-destination) matrix
or a set of matrices. According to Taylor, Young and Bonsall (1996), the O-D trip matrix
plays a very important role in transport systems planning and impact analysis by revealing
fundamental information about the spatial pattern of trip making in the study region. It
provides the analysis with the pattern of travel in terms of the trip movements (travel desire)
between a set of origin points and a set of destination points on the boundary of study region
over a given time period.

According to Taylor, Young and Bonsall (1996) the O-D matrix may be determined in three
different ways:
(a) by direct observation, using traffic surveys (e.g. a registration plate survey) or
questionnaire surveys
(b) by synthesis from observed flows on the links in the network.
(c) by modelling (e.g. Wilson's gravity models of trip distribution).

Easa (1993a) termed the O-D matrices determination by using direct observation as
conventional analysis. Three main types of models are considered in the conventional
analysis: Fratar models, Opportunity models and Gravity models.

In addition there are several sub models that could be considered as traffic count based
models, those models are as follow (Easa 1993b):
Gravity-Based Models,
Entropy Models,
Equilibrium Models,
Statistical Models,
Neural Network Models and
Fuzzy Weights Models.

Furthermore, Easa (1 993b) also mentioned several cheaper and quicker response theories and
methods to determine O-D matrices by modelling based on theory (or principle, or
hypothesis) used, those are:
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Simplified Techniques,
Self-Calibrating Gravity Models,
Partial Matrices Techniques,
Models using GIS data,
Heuristics Methods and
27
 Facility Forecasting Techniques.

Besides the models above there are also models developed for special applications like
freeway trip distribution, pedestrian trip distribution and special purpose trip distribution
models. Examples of the special purpose trip distribution models include continuous models
(that ignore the zones altogether when the changes in land use patterns are small) and
simultaneous models or direct demand models (that simultaneously analyse trip distribution
and other transport planning step).

In general, the available models can be categorised using two different criteria, first based on
number of individuals represented by the model and second based on the data used. Based on
number of individuals represented by the model, there are two classes of model. The first is
called aggregate models, and the second is called disaggregate models.

The aggregate models, which are also called zonal level models, represent the behaviour of
more than one individual. The aggregate models are commonly termed as the stepwise
method, e.g. the four-step model. This consists of trip generation modelling, trip distribution
modelling, modal split and assignment; hence the designation 'four-step' or 'stepwise'
approach. The disaggregate models, are sometimes referred to as the behavioural approach.
These attempt to represent the behaviour of each individual. These models apply discrete
choice modelling methods, which are generally based on a principle that the individuals will
choose one option from a set of alternatives with a certain probability based on their socio-
economic characteristics and the attractiveness of the option. The individuals also seek to
maximise the utility of their decisions (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

Based on the data used, there are also two classes of model. The first is termed the
conventional models. In this class, the source of data used in modelling transport demand is
mainly from direct observations like home interview or roadside interview. The second is
termed the unconventional models, and is also often termed as simplified or quick response
travel demand models. The unconventional models use mostly readily available data such as
traffic flows and socio-economic data as their main emphasis is to reduce costs of analysis
and avoid the other problems of the conventional models. The application of the
unconventional travel demand models is usually at the aggregate level.

Young, Taylor and Gipps. (1989), Taylor (1991), and Taylor et al. (2004) provided a
complete way to categorise models by developing hierarchies of models that consider several

28
factors. Those factors include the relevance of modelling theories and concepts,
appropriateness of levels and detail of input data, appropriateness of choice of computing
methods and computing capacity, and relevancy of model outputs.

Based on those factors, seven-level of hierarchy can be identified, which is useful for traffic
analysis and modelling. The hierarchy is:
(1) microscopic simulation of individual unit in a traffic stream. It is done for example in
assessing vehicle performance on some part of the network (e.g. junction, link), or in
modelling pedestrian traffic movements at railway station or an airport, etc.
(2) macroscopic flow models, where it is assumed that the flows units behave in similar way
on some part of the network. It is done for example in modelling traffic flows at
intersection or on a link
(3) simulation models of flows in network for network optimisation purpose. It is done for
example in modelling the impacts of changes of system variables (e.g. traffic signal
timings or bus service frequencies) on network performance namely delays and queuing
when intensity, distribution, and route choice are fixed;
(4) dense network 'high resolution' models for evaluating direct demand response (e.g.
deviations in route, destination, mode and trip timing choices) to changes in system
performance (modified transport system). This level can be used to indicate likely change
on system performance (as in (3) above) as well as to indicate likely reaction of traveller
to the altered system. This level mainly contains of traffic assignment model, so that can
be applied to create synthetic trip distribution matrices
(5) strategic network 'medium resolution' models, typically used in travel demand network
analysis package. It involves the 'four step' approach consisting of trip generation, trip
distribution, modal choice, and trip assignment. More recently, the fifth step, trip timing,
can be added to indicate the changes of temporal travel pattern over the hours of the day
(6) strategic network 'low resolution' models , typically applied to study impacts of transport
infrastructure projects, regional impacts of new or redevelopment of land use facilities,
and to provide data for project planning. The approaches used in this level are similar to
the level (5)
(7) sketch planning models of land use-transport interactions, where only notional
representations regarding the spatial relations between spatial element may be produced.
The decision resulted from this level may need to be tested at the more detailed levels
using the lower level models as appropriate

29
The seven-level hierarchy above may also be interpreted as classification based on spatial
aggregation and time duration. The higher level means that it has a larger area and a longer
planning horizon.

Figure 2.2 shows a representation of spatial relationship between models at level 1 to 6, and
also their implications on level 7. The linkages between models represent the transfer of
information between models that are essential in integrating all models, so that the results of
one model could be an input of another model.

Road section
(level

Isolated
intersection
(level 1 2)

(level 1 2)
New development
(level 3, 4)

[Flows across the cordon of

the local area a critical issue
for level 4 level 5 interaction)

II II II

Figure 2.2 Spatial representation of level (1)-(6) models in the modelling hierarchy
Source: Taylor et a!. (2004), p. 6

As the introduction of continuous transport planning (dynamic planning) requires that all
steps in the planning process are adaptable and must be able to be operated quickly, so a
transport model is no exception. It needs model that can be re run and updated using low cost
and easy to collect data (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

30
The unconventional transport models could be considered as the models that meet the
requirement of continuous transport planning. In addition, there are several problems in using
conventional methods like home interview or roadside interview for collecting travel demand
(origin-destination) data. The methods tend to be costly, labour intensive and cause
inconvenience to travellers as the survey disrupts their time. In developing countries where
population and land use change rapidly, the problem can be even worse, as the data could
only be used over short periods (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

In Indonesia, the conventional methods for intercity travel demand data collection had only
been done twice since Indonesia achieved its independence in 1945. If the data are only good
in the short term, then the application of conventional methods are more costly in Indonesia
and possibly in other developing countries as well.

Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994, p. 353) stated that:

For many years the main emphasis in transport modelling has been to enrich their
behavioural content and improve data-collection methods as a means to enhance their
accuracy, realism and reduce costs. A parallel line of research has sought to improve
transport modelling by emphasising the use of readily available data and the
communicability of simpler model features and results. This stream of research has had
an important impact in practice as it offers not only reduced costs but also simplified
data-collection and processing requirements. The interest in simplified in simplified
modelling techniques is unlikely to diminish in the future. Consultants and local
authority modellers are often asked to study transport proposals in almost ridiculously
short time spans: The development of better and sounder simplified methods to achieve
this will always be welcome.

2.8 Summary

The review of the relation of transport planning, project evaluation, and transport demend
model in this chapter can be summarised as follows:

31
 The ability to provide transport service is behind the transport need of community, so that
transport planning is needed to ensure that the best decision of solutions of transport
problems can be produced.
Transport planning emphasis is now more concerned with the reduction of transport
growth and providing accessibility of community to their socio-economic activities at
appropriate levels.
The new approach to transport planning has widened the group stakeholders of transport
project, and requires the use of both quantitative and qualitative analyses in the transport
planning.
Dynamic or continuous planning is suitable for transport problems as transport is a
complex and dynamic system.
Continuous transport planning treats transport problems as a system, which means any
changes of external and/or internal environments of transport could be taken into account
in the developed planning.
Continuous planning is necessary to support mixed-mode decision-making style suitable
for transport problems.
The decision in any transport planning is determined after the evaluation step. The quality
of the decision depends on the evaluation step and the inputs of the evaluation. Transport
model is the main input of evaluation step.
There are two main transport evaluation methods namely cost-benefit analysis and
multicriteria analysis.
There are several ways in order to classify transport models: based on number of
individuals represented in the model, based on the data used, and based on spatial
aggregation and time duration.
Based on number of individuals there are two groups, namely aggregate models and
disaggregate models.
Based on the data used there are also two groups namely conventional models and
unconventional models.
Based on spatial aggregation and time duration, then there is the seven-level of hierarchy
of traffic models.
The continuous transport planning requires evaluation methods and transport models that
are adaptable and quick response, namely unconventional models.

32
 CHAPTER THREE

3 THE PRACTICE OF EVALUATION SYSTEM AND

TRANSPORT DEMAND MODEL FOR
TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS

3.1 Introduction

The main task of evaluation in the urban and regional planning process is to assist in decision-
making. The results of evaluation must be able to be used to explain any consequences of
projects or policies under consideration to all parties involved in the decision making process,
namely the formal decision makers and any members of the general public who may
participate in decision making process and communities affected by the projects or policies
(Lichfield, Kettle & Whitbread 1975).

As the decision-making process in urban and regional involves different parties with different
interests, evaluation will be charactensed with arguments between parties to defend their
interests. It is hard if not impossible to arrive at a decision that can maximise the interests of
all parties. Evaluation therefore must be able to facilitate an agreement that as far as possible
satisfies all parties.

Further, as the decision making process is affected by political and institutional factors, so the
evaluation systems of different countries can vary widely. There are several methods to
evaluate or appraise alternatives in transportation planrnng, but generally they can be grouped
into two main groups: namely cost benefit analysis (CBA) and multicnteria analysis (MCA).
There are variants of CBA, including cost-effectiveness approach, shadow project approach,
and total cost approach. There are also variants of MCA, such as planning balanced sheet
(PBS) and goal achievement matrix.

Hayashi and Morisugi (2000) compared the background concepts and methodologies for
transportation project evaluation in some developed countries (France, Japan, Germany, the
United States of America (USA), and the United Kingdom (UK)). The aspects compared in
their study are institutional organisation of transportation sector, systems of transport project
33
evaluation, manuals for project evaluation, transport demand forecasting models, value of
time estimation models, safety impacts included in the evaluation and their monetary
valuation methods, environmental impacts included in the evaluation and their valuation
methods, regional impacts, efficiency criteria used, and related matters about CBA. In this
chapter, only system of transport project evaluation and transport demand forecasting model
are reviewed.

According to Hayashi and Morisugi (2000), cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is the common main
method for transportation evaluation in developed countries, although there are variations
between countries in the application of CBA. Several technical aspects are taken into account
in the analysis including transportation demand forecasting, valuation of time, traffic safety,
environmental impacts, regional economic impacts, and efficiency criteria. Where it is
necessary, financial analysis is also conducted. One aspect also suggested for incorporation in
the project evaluation process is post evaluation, but only Japan has decided to do so. Some
countries have extended the CBA into multi-criteria analysis. The common main criteria of all
countries are timesavings, accident reduction, and impact on the environment. Land use and
local development are sometimes also included as parameters in the analysis.

Hayashi and Morisugi (2000) concluded that in terms of transport demand forecasting
models, there were similarities between countries in that every country applies the
conventional stepwise model. The difference was in the treatment of induced demand, where
only the USA, the UK, France, and Japan considered taking it into account in transport
demand forecasting. The calculation and inclusion procedures for induced traffic were also
different in those four countries.

3.2 Transportation Projects Evaluation System in

Developed Countries

3.2.1 France

In France, multicriteria analysis was applied extensively in decision-making process in the

late 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s (Quinet 2000). According to Quinet (2000), the
application of multicriteria analysis where criteria weights are determined by decision-makers
often led to irrational decisions and a waste of public fund. Present recommendations use
34
standardised monetary values for most items, or in other words a shift back to CBA though
some impacts namely employment and local development are assessed apart from the main
CBA. So that CBA is only one of the elements in the decision making process. The process
started with long-term master plan, medium-term programming and technical project
approval, and the yearly budgeting. CBA has different weight in each of these phases, where
CBA is more important in medium term planning. The recommendations are mainly applied
to intercity infrastructure (Quinet, 2000).

On the other hand, the use of multicriteria analysis is recommended for evaluating urban
transport infrastructure projects, as CBA is not considered to fit well to urban problems. The
indicators and weighting system are provided in the manual to ensure the coherency of the
decision. The indicators are in different units (see Table 3.1) (Quinet, 2000).

Table 3.1 List of the indicators for urban projects evaluation in France
Point of view Indicator Nature of indicator
1. Fitness to the goals of the Location goals Qualitative
agglomeration Location equity Qualitative
2. Impact on mobility Traffic of the project Trip km
Population and jobs concerned by the project No. of people or jobs
Variation of accessibility No. of people or jobs
Gain in total travel time Percentage
Proportion of the users coming from other modes Percentage
3. Impact on quality of service Frequency Number of vehlhour
Reliability of travel km Qualitative
Increase in comfort Qualitative
4. Financial performance Cost of investment Francs
Subsidies Francs
Operating cost total per pass and km Francs
Operating deficit Francs
5. Environmental impact Decrease in car traffic Car km
Decrease in car air pollution emission Ton/day
Decrease in mass transit pollution Ton/day
Number of housing whose noise decrease Number
Decrease in traffic accident Number
Impact on local urban environment Qualitative
6. Monetarised indicator Net Present Value (NPV) Francs
NPV per invested franc Francs
Internal rate Return (IRR) Number
7. Impacts on employment Number ofjobs/year during building Number
Number ofjobs during operations Number

8. Reluctance factor Factor increasing the cost or the delay Qualitative

Estimated time between decision and operation Year

Source: Quinet (2000), p. 32

35
3.2.2 Germany

In Germany, transportation projects evaluation is carried out using CBA. Criteria are all
transformed in monetary values using market prices or shadow prices. The major part of the
benefits of transport projects are from the saving of time costs and vehicle operating costs. In
order to determine the impacts of different scenarios of projects, criteria and sub criteria are
derived from main seven objectives (Rothengatter, 2000). Those objectives are:
1. Reduction of transportation costs:
1.1 vehicle operating cost,
1.2 vehicle standing cost, and
1.3 costs and benefits of mode change.
2. Change of infrastructure maintenance costs:
2.1 change of renewal costs, and
2.2 change of periodical maintenance costs.
3. Benefits of improved traffic safety,
4. Benefits of improved accessibility,
5. Beneficial spatial effects:
5.1 employment effects during construction period,
5.2 employment effects related to the operation of new infrastructure,
5.3 benefits from improved spatial situation, and
5.4 improvement to international exchange.
6. Benefits from improving the environmental situation:
6.1 noise reduction,
6.2 exhaust fume reduction,
6.3 reduction of separation effects caused by transport infrastructure, and
6.4 avoidance of negative urban environmental effects for housing quality and
communication.
7. Beneficial non-transport related effects.

3.2.3 Japan

The transportation projects evaluation in Japan employs a kind of multicriteria analysis

(MCA) (Morisugi 2000). The MCA is supplemented by CBA and by quantitative andlor
qualitative evaluation. In road projects, the function of CBA is only to judge whether or not
the project should be listed as an alternative. The final decision is based on MCA. However,
36
 ___________
__________________
____________
______________
___________________

the assignment of criteria weights is still unclear. Main benefits are travel time saving, costs
saving and accident reduction. Other factors added to CBA among others are regional
economic impacts, global and local environment impacts, contribution to achieving minimum
living standard and back-up functions for emergencies.

In order to consistently account for the qualitative, quantitative and monetary values of all
impacts of the projects, recommended practice in the Japanese road, seaport and airport
manual is to develop benefit incidence table (BIT) in the evaluation process. Table 3.2 shows
a qualitative BIT. If all items are in monetary values, then benefit/cost is simply the totals of
rows or columns. The total of cells in a colunm is the net benefit of the sector, and the total of
cells in a row is the net benefit of an item under the social net benefit (SNB), and the total of
cell in the BIT is the social net benefit, or total benefits minus costs. The manual design does
not allow doing comparison of different modes (Morisugi 2000).

Table 3.2 Benefit Incidence Table

road a.., hoaeeheld indoutry government

n5 5 5
-5 0
85 .2 0
8

2
2
2
I S -to
.5

+0 +0 +0
ratlog coat +0 +0
Road Read ud.ntc +0 +0 +0
R comfort +0 +0 +0
mkossoemcnt of .nfety end comfort oe .idrocal +A
Direct oil Devmont -o
thango In nit pollution +0 +0 +0
effect locate in nolec +0 +0 +0
locate lot scenery 0 0 0 +0 +0 0
bang. I. ecological ayatnm A A A
lounge in merge coanomptien(glob.t rc.nnio 0
Roodoido tiliantioc of read opsm
community ,etworlo redundancy tar eec rgency +A +A
Civic life tlacgem,nt oimmmoeicalion epporturnty +A +A
region tohonrement toe public cerviro availability A A
tpkeep c(popnlution A
rodocoicn ieceeeao wiUt indoc rtn.l location +0 -0
Regional noreen in employment cod it +0 -0
Indirect economy -lounge in prime of commodity and noroton + 0 -0
mean in enact value -0 -0
effect Place!
eapeediture
tavlngo in poblic service met -0 +0 +0 +0
Tao cccl tao -0 -0
Public ..tlnnnl tot -0 -0 +0 0
cedar. Public tubeldy +0 -0 0
eubeidy oveotmuot +0 0-0 0

Profit-
Toll revenue +0 +0
ability Project ,onatenction cc -0
coOt -0 -0
Total
ii
Itt ( + positive client : captive elliot * unknown nip 0 meacurabie in monetary brow I roogbly rnoeeor.bl. A difficult to moeoore)

Source: Hayashi and Morisugi (2000), p. 36

37
3.2.4 The United States of America

In the USA, CBA is the decision framework used by government agencies for evaluating
alternative actions, whether investment, operations, or regulation. The CBA process is
technically grouped into three phases, namely alternative, impacts, and evaluation (see Figure
3.1). Alternatives are grouped into base alternative, project alternative(s), and supporting
activities. The base alternative should be the most efficient alternative without substantial
additional investment, as evaluation against inefficient alternatives will be biased. The list of
project alternatives are ordered according to the magnitude of the investment from low capital
to high, so that high investment project will be compared against more modest investments.
Supporting actions are needed to support the selected alternative to achieve maximum
benefits. Impacts are benefits of actions taken compared to the base alternative. Evaluation
concludes whether alternative is feasible or not by synthesising all information. Project
benefits come from time saving, reduction of user, agency, and external costs, safety
improvement, quality improvement, and increase of consumer surplus. There is no standard
value of parameters, but agreements tend to be reached on several parameters. Equity is
considered but analysed separately of CBA. Economic and development impacts are not
included in CBA (Lee 2000).

Figure 3.1 Major components of benefit-cost analysis in the USA

Source: Lee (2000), p. 42

38
3.2.5 The United Kingdom

The standard of road projects evaluation in the United Kingdom for many years has been a
program called COBA (cost-benefit analysis). COBA depends on a rigorous transport model
by which the change of traffic resulting from a particular project can be assessed. Benefits are
mainly the results of timesavings, valued at a constant rate, and reductions in accidents. Rank
lists of the projects are decided according to the Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR). Factors not
directly taken into account in COBA are environmental cost or benefit or any economic
impact on surrounding regions (except where a given number of jobs can be directly and
wholly attributed to a given project). COBA is then strongly biased to alternatives giving
largest timesavings and reductions in accident costs. COBA has a relatively narrow scope (but
provides highly detailed appraisal on criteria covered) compared to systems applied in other
countries (Vickerman 2000).

According to Vickerman (2000), a New Approach to Appraisal (NATA) was introduced in

1998 in order to provide a more clear and open evaluation system of trunk road investments.
NATA included criteria previously not taken into account in COBA. The main element of
NATA is Appraisal Summary Table (AST), where COBA is kept as one key element. The
COBA is incorporated in journey times and vehicle operating costs criterion, scheme costs
criterion, and safety criterion. Table 3.3 shows an example of AST. Each criterion should
have both qualitative and quantitative elements, where qualitative measures should be on a
seven points scale from large negative to large positive effects. There are no weights for the
criteria, the AST is used to provide single sheet summary to decision makers. It is still
unclear in what level for example, net negative environmental impact would cancel out an
investment with positive net present value and benefit-cost ratio (Vickerman 2000).

39
 Table 3.3 - Comparison of AST results for two schemes

A2 (Bean-Cobham Ph.1) (GOSE) A4 Waggoners/Henlys Corner (GOL)

1996 Scheme - 6km D4 on-line widening 1996 Scheme two A4 jct.
Cost 44m Improvements Cost: 14.1 m.
P ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT
ENVIR 0 properties win or lose wth scheme 0 properties win or lose with sthwne
CO.. +I2PMIO -9PM10
0-iXlt) 1,5mm adjed + 21 NO. -32 NO,
Slight -Va Neutral

Slight -ye Neutral

Neutral Neutral
Moderate Ye Neutral

PVII 2. i'm PVB 2.4m

'
. :
.: oIPVC 24% of PVC
ECONOMY &V PVBf248m
.
2490%otPVC
PVC 29m PVC LIOm

Moderate! N/A
Iii heel, to PVC N/A
Yes Yes
Yes -
Neutral Slight .rc

Neutral Moderate eve

Neutral Slight +re

Neutral

C . ''.. ' ' , BCR1.5 PVCEIOm NPVE24Om BCR2S

Source: Vickerman (2000), p.14

Sayers, Jessop and Hills (2003) stated that there is still a 'black box' in multicriteria basis of
NATA (Figure 3.2). The alternative ordering in NATA relies on decision-makers' value
judgments in trading-off the various output data from NATA. They warned that if the black
box is unresolved, then multicriteria evaluation will be unworkable and will lose credibility.
Furthermore, what happened in France where they moved away from multicriteria analysis to
CBA could also happen in the UK.

For example, the AST table above (Table 3.3) consists of two candidate projects; first is to
widen a major radial route to the South-east London from dual 3 lane to dual 4 lane and
second is to improve two junctions on a major radial route to the West of London. The first
candidate is characterised by a low benefit-cost ratio (BCR) of 1.5 and a strong implied wider
economic impacts, and the second is characterised by a very high BCR of 25. The final
decision was to accept the first candidate. The second candidate was rejected due to a
possibility that other solutions such as application of traffic management might give a more
immediate solution. Vickerman (2000) suggested that the difficulty with the final decision of
AST above is in its dependency on decision-makers' subjective judgments so that the
outcome ignore available benefits to the users (net present value benefits of 240 million) and
accept uncertain wider economic benefits elsewhere.

40
The problem in the black box is in how to assess criteria weights. Sayers, Jessop and Hills
(2003) suggested a multicriteria analysis approach using Weighted Sum model where criteria
weights are determined using Linear Partial Information or Imprecise Ratio Statements. They
claimed that the model has both consistency and flexibility. Consistency is provided in the
form of guidance on how the criteria weights must be assessed and flexibility is included by
accommodating different value judgments and the objectives of the project.

Decision-maker(s)
apply value
judgments

Decision as to
preferred
option

Figure 3.2 A simplified representation of the decision-making process

Source: Sayers et al (2003), p. 96

3.2.6 Comparison Between Developed Countries

Hayashi and Morisugi (2000) gave a substantial comparison of the evaluation systems of five
developed countries (France, Japan, Germany, the USA and the UK).

Although CBA is the main common method applied in all countries, there are differences in
the designation of weight for different parameters. Each country applies a different set of
valuation procedures for the different criteria parameters. For instance the UK gives more
weight to time savings and accident reduction, while France tends to rate the impact on local
development of urban and intercity investments more importantly (Hayashi and Morisugi
2000). The complete summary of the comparison is given in Appendix A.

41
3.2.7 European Union

Bristow and Nellthrop (2000) reviewed transport project evaluation system in the member
states of the European Union (EU). They found that the most common forms of appraisal
applied in the EU member states are CBA and MCA. In countries where MCA is applied, the
CBA is one of the criteria. They divided transport project impacts into direct impacts (main
components of CBA such as vehicle operating costs, time savings, and safety), environmental
impacts, and socio-economic impacts. Key impacts in EU member states are generally time
savings, safety, environmental impacts, and output and employment.

A high level of agreement is achieved in the direct impacts and environmental impacts that
should be taken into account in the evaluation. However, values vary differently when dealing
with impacts that have no market values, such as time and accident costs. Less agreement is
found when determining the appropriateness of monetary valuation of environmental impacts.
There is also very little agreement on how to add socio-economic impacts to the direct
impacts and under what circumstances (Bristow and Nellthrop 2000). The full comparison
related to the evaluation system in use in EU member states is presented in Appendix B.

3.3 Transport Demand Models For Transportation

Projects in Developed Countries

3.3.1 France

For transportation demand forecasting, a program called ARIANE had been developed in
France for special traffic studies in road projects. This program uses a gravity model in both
modelling trip generation and trip distribution. For route choice, ARTANE applies a form of
logit aggregate model. ARTANE does not include modal choice in the analysis. In situations
where route choice is complicated, specific models were used. Induced demand was
sometimes taken into consideration (Quinet, 2000).

42
3.3.2 Germany

According to Rothengatter (2000), transportation demand is forecasted using a common

method consisting of the following working steps:
Forecast of structural development (population, economy, energy price)
Scenarios for exogenous conditions (regulations, transport prices, subsidisation)
Assumption of reference supply side conditions
Four-step method: traffic volumes, spatial distribution of flows, modal split and
assignment.
Separation by short distance and long distance traffic (50 km threshold).

There is no treatment for induced demand. Passenger and freight are treated separately but
come together in the assignment step and is performed in an integrated way by taking into
account all modal alternatives (i.e. by applying nested logit approach) (Rothengatter 2000).

3.3.3 Japan

In Japan, the four-step method is applied for roads and railways but not specified for seaports
and airports. The application used fixed origin destination tables, so there was no treatment of
induced demand, except for specific projects (Morisugi 2000).

3.3.4 The United States of America (USA)

A functional relationship between demand and price or elasticities is recognised in the USA.
The traffic assignment step as part of conventional four-step method uses the relationship to
account for induced demand, so demand forecasts will produce more than single values.
Diverted traffic is also taken into account as part of induced traffic (Lee 2000).

43
3.3.5 The United Kingdom (UK)

The four-step travel demand forecasting method applied in the United Kingdom assumes a
fixed origin-destination trip matrix. There is also an assumption that traffic growth on each
link is the same as on the whole network. However, the need to allow variable trip matrices
and so include induced traffic is now recognised, although fixed trip matrices continue to be
used as a benchmark in comparisons concerning the adequacy of the techniques for
calculating induced traffic (Vickerman 2000).

3.3.6 Comparison Between Developed Countries

An overall summary of the comparison is .given in Hayashi and Morisugi (2000) and is
attached in Appendix C. One need to be highlighted is that there is a problem with the
stepwise method, namely inconsistencies among the steps. A consistency between the
theoretical backgrounds for parameter estimation used in demand forecasting and used in
users' benefit evaluation is also essential in transport project evaluation. Inconsistency
between these two will lead to a wrong decision. The theoretical background needs to be
consistent in estimating parameters such as for generalised cost.

3.4 Evaluation Methodologies in Developing Countries

Highway Development and Management System
(HDM)

3.4.1 Background

In developing countries, the appraisal of non-emergency road investments to be funded by the

World Bank's loans is mostly done using software system developed by the World Bank and
its associates called the Highway Development and Management (HDM) system. The latest
version of the software is called HDM-4 (Talvatie 2000).

44
Various road investment planning scenarios can be handled by HDM-4 software applications.
The applications of H1DM-4 can be classified into three levels of analyses: strategy analysis,
programme analysis, and project analysis (Kerali 2000).

Strategy analysis is related to the concept of strategic planning, so that it deals with medium
to long term planning estimates (usually 5-40 years) of expenditure needs for entire road
networks or sub-networks development and conservation under different budget scenarios.
Several applications of strategy analysis by road administrations may be as follows: medium
to long term forecasts of funding requirements for specified target road maintenance
standards; forecasts of long term road network performance under varying levels of funding;
policy studies such as pavement maintenance standards, etc.

Programme analysis works in one-year to multi-year time horizon of planning of a prioritised

project under defined budget constraints. The prioritised project is selected from a defined list
of candidate road projects based on the maintenance, improvement or development standards
that a road administration may have defined. Those defined standards may be reseal pavement
surface at 20% damage, widen roads with volume/capacity ratio greater than 0.8, upgrade
gravel roads to sealed pavements when annual average daily traffic exceeds 200 vehicle per
day, etc.

In strategy analysis, individual link characteristics are unidentifiable as all links are grouped
based on their similarity of categories such as traffic volume, pavement types, pavement
condition, environment, and function. On the other hand, programme analysis is able to
identify the physical characteristics of each individual link deals with annual
as it
programmes. The similarity between these two analyses is that they seek to optimise an
objective function under budget constraint by combining treatment alternatives across a
number of sections in the network.

Project analysis is a more detailed evaluation, which evaluates one or more road projects or
investment options. At this level, the user selects the treatments and economic indicators for
different investment options, and costs and benefits are projected annually over the analysis
period. The type of application in this level of analysis may be the maintenance and
rehabilitation of existing roads, widening or geometric improvement schemes, pavement
upgrading and new construction. The economic or engineering viability of each project could
consider issues such as the structural performance of road pavements, road user costs and
benefits, economic comparisons of project alternatives, etc.

45
In strategy analysis and programme analysis, the data can be more generic, while the data is
specified in terms of measured defects in project analysis. For instance road roughness could
be specified as good, fair or poor in strategy analysis and programme analysis, but it would be
specified in terms of the International Roughness Index (1111) value (mlkm) in project
analysis.

The applications of HDM-4 at these three analysis levels are designed to be able to undertake
the highway management process containing planning, programming, preparation and
operations functions. The highway management process is believed to be able to provide a
suitable framework within which needs-based approach traditionally applied by many road
organization can operate. Table 3.5 shows the detail of the highway management process.

Table 3.4 - Change in highway management processes and the corresponding HDM-4
applications

Activity Time Staff Spatial Data Mode of HDM-4

horizon responsible coverage detail computer application
operation
Planning Long Term Senior Network- Coarse! Automatic HDM-4:
(Strategic) management wide summary Strategy
and policy level Analysis
Programming Medium Middle-level Network or HDM-4:
term professionals sub- Programme
(tactical) network Analysis
Preparations Budget Junior Scheme HDM-4:
year professionals level! Project
sections Analysis
Operations Immediate! Technicians! Scheme Fine! Interactive Not
very short sub- level! sub- Detailed addressed by
term professionals sections HDM-4

Source: Kerali (2000), p. 7

The functions in the highway management process are sequential activities, so the process
needs a system to integrate them. HDM-4 adopts the management cycle concept to do so. The
cycle provides decision-maker/s in the management process with a series of well-defined

46
steps typically to be completed once in each year or in one budgeting period. The following
figure is the schematic diagram of the highway management cycle adopted from Kerali
(2000).

Figure 3.3 - Highway management cycle

Source: Kerali (2000), p. 8

Kerali (2000) explained that in undertaking technical analysis using HDM-4 applications, a
wide range of mathematical and logic models are used. The mathematical and logical models
are grouped into four sets of models: road deterioration model, work effects model, road user
effects model, and social and environment effects.

Road deterioration (RD) predicts pavement deterioration for bituminous, concrete and
unsealed roads. Work effects (WE) simulate the effects of road works on pavement condition
and determine the corresponding costs. Road user effects (RUE) determine costs of vehicle
operation, road accidents and travel time. Social and environmental effects (SEE) determine
the effects of vehicle emissions and energy consumption.

The predictions, determinations and simulations are based on the concept of pavement life
cycle analysis. Road pavements deteriorate mostly as consequence of traffic loading,
environmental weathering and effect of inadequate drainage systems, so that the overall long-

47
term condition of road pavements directly depends on the maintenance or improvement
standards applied to the road and ratio between actual traffic and permitted traffic in
accordance with its design function.

3.4.2 Evaluation System

Talvatie (2000) stated that in the CBA, the increase in consumer surplus or net benefit is the
most widely used criterion (area AXYB in Figure 3.4), so the demand curve, which is also the
function of willingness to pay of consumers for making trips under various (generalised)
prices, is fundamental. It is then necessary that the benefits are calculated from a demand
curve estimated using the commensurate perceived prices (consistent with the transport
demand forecasting model) in order to apply the economic concept correctly, which is rarely
or might even never happen in practice (including the practice of method utilised by the
World Bank). In practice, a resource based economic evaluation is applied; the benefit is
merely the reduction in the (economic) user costs.

generalised costltrip

Old road

B
Demand curve

0
V0 V0
daily trips

Figure 3.4 - Travel demand curve showing consumers' surplus

Source: Talvatie (2000), p. 65

According to Talvatie (2000, p. 61), the economic viability of alternatives in I-IDM-4 is

compared using engineering-economic approach which can be defined as follows:

A road system is designed and built to functional and technical standards that minimise
the total road transport cost to society, comprising the life cycle costs of facilities to the
road administration, the users, and society. Road designs are therefore, viewed as an
48
 __________________________________

economic choice rather than as an imposed technical requirement, without sacrificing

safety or environment. When budgets are constrained, trade-offs between relaxing either
design or maintenance standards are evaluated on the basis of the long-term
consequences of future higher costs for more expensive treatments such as
reconstruction. It is emphasised that this process determines both the "optimal" agency
budget and the optimal road standard.

The approach basically argues that the area under the demand curve represents the benefit to
consumers and when compared to costs, the value of investments. The argument is based on
consumer theory in which the theory states that demand curve also indicates the value of
utility-maximising consumer, not only indicates the quantity of the goods or the service
bought under certain price. There is another approach, which is based on the perspective of a
private provider of infrastructure. Within this approach, road proj ect is treated as a private
project where it is usually financed through user fees. This approach also uses the relationship
of willingness to pay and travel volume, but the vertical axis is the price charged for trips. The
shaded areas of Figure 3.5, i.e. the user revenues from the "new and "old" projects, are
compared to costs. The user revenue then becomes the budget constraint of the project. The
valuation of the generalised cost is represented through the price paid. This approach also
requires user-oriented road administration.

price/trip

B
7 Old road

road

Demand curve

0
V. daily trips

Figure 3.5 - Travel demand curve showing user revenue

Source: Talvatie (2000), p. 65

Based on the above definition the main objectives of engineering-economic approach are to
find an alternative that maximise economic benefit (net present valuefNPV) for the whole
network within the budget constraint or maximise the improvement in network condition
49
(similar to NPV maximisation) or minimise road works costs in achieving a given target of
road network condition. These objectives are commonly applied in strategy and programme
analysis.

The elasticity of travel demand upon the change of price charged for trips is then essential in
this approach. Overall, as the main objective of road project is to provide a better service to
travellers such as increased accessibility, reduced travel time, reduced vehicle operating cost,
increased safety, etc., which are well known as road user effects, so transport demand (traffic
volume) and transport demand forecasting models are always the critical inputs in the project
evaluation, whatever approach is used.

In the HDM-4 system, the costs and benefits arising from road investments may be classified
into three broad categories namely benefits and costs expressed in monetary terms (e.g.
vehicle operating costs, savings in travel time, accident costs), quantified benefits and costs
not expressed in monetary terms (e.g. road safety, pollution from vehicle missions and traffic
noise), and non-quantified benefits and costs (e.g. better social welfare, ecological impacts).
The evaluation in HDM-4 only considers direct benefits and costs expressed in monetary
terms. When other costs and benefits are considered, the HDM-4 system suggest applying
multicriteria analysis (Odoki & Kerali 2000).

To avoid problems such as those reported in France (see section 3.2.1), there is a strong need
for multicriteria analysis procedures that are suitable for the situations found in developing
countries situation. The need of a procedure to explain the black box shown in figure 3.2 is
very clear; otherwise the problem of wasting public funds and irrational decisions will
happen. If such problems occurred in developed countries where debate and changed ideas are
common in decision making, so it would be worse in developing countries where top-down
decision-making is a significant possibility.

3.4.3 Transport Demand Forecasting Model

The H1)M-4 defines vehicles in the traffic in terms of a three-level hierarchy namely
categories, classes and types. In the categories level, vehicles are divided into motorised
vehicles and non-motorised vehicles. In each category, vehicles are classified based on their
similarity. There are 5 classes of vehicle for motorised vehicle namely motorcycles, passenger

50
cars, utilities, trucks, and buses. For non-motorised vehicles, there are also 5 classes of
vehicle namely pedestrian, bicycle, cycle rickshaw, animal cart, and farm tractor.

Each class of vehicle contains individual representative vehicle types, for which a set of RUE
relationships has been provided. There are 16 types of vehicle in the motorised vehicles
category and 8 types of vehicle in non-motorised category. For example, types of vehicle in
passenger cars class are small car, medium car and large car, and types of vehicle in animal
cart class are horse cart and ox cart.

The HDM-4 uses an arithmetic growth rate to estimate traffic volume, and when data are
available, a combination of the rate of anticipated growth in gross national product (GNP) and
travel demand elasticity is used. The latter method is favoured since it is common that there
are strong correlations between traffic volume and economic activity, something that a simple
model such as arithmetic growth rate may not capture (Bennet and Patterson, 2000). The
form of the arithmetic growth is as follow:

" GROWTH\(YEAR_I)
AADTyear :__AADTbase[\1+ (3.1)
100 J

where: AADTyear is the traffic volume in the analysis year

AADTbase is the traffic volume in year 1
YEAR is the year of analysis
GROWTH is the traffic growth in percent

In determining traffic growth rate, several methods can be used including historical traffic
trends, economic trends (such as growth in GDP), and vehicle ownership trends, or a
combination. Historical trends method is the least recommended method as its accuracy is
lower than the other two and the use of fuel trends is preferred. It is argued that rapid
motorisation and economic growth in developing countries will alter the historical trends.
Furthermore, it is common for there to be strong correlations between traffic volume and
economic activity. The economic trends based traffic growth portrays the elasticity between
traffic and the change of economic measures. An example of such methods would be the
following equations, taken from Bennet and Paterson (2000):

51
 GROWTH = (dGNP x EGNP) + (c/POP x EPOP) (3.2)

GROWTH = dGNP x EFUEL (3.3)

where: dGNP is the forecast change in the GNP (%)

dPOP is the forecast change in population (%)
EGNP is the GNP elasticity
EPOP is the population elasticity
EFUEL is the fuel elasticity

The arithmetic growth model (equation (3.1)) is suitable for developing countries from a data
and resource point of view. Since planning activity in the highway management process
covers the analysis of the road system as a whole, then the use of forecasting techniques in
which its spatial coverage is only for a section or sub-section (e.g. arithmetic growth rate) will
no longer be beneficial. In other words, the highway management cycle cannot be fully
applied if the transport demand forecasting model cannot capture the dynamic of the network
such as the impact of the project on the other roads andlor networks.

The arithmetic growth model above does not show any relations between the change of road
user costs and the changes of traffic volume. For instance, holding other socio-economic
variables, which affect travel demand constant, then the change of travel demand is affected
by road conditions only (price). If the relation between travel demand and price is not
captured in the travel demand curve as shown in the above formulas, then the user revenue
calculation will be inaccurate and project budget determination will be inaccurate as well.

It is actually acknowledged in the HDM-4 that there are four principle categories of future
traffic which are forecast (Bennet and Paterson, 2000): these are normal traffic (assuming the
current trends remain steady), diverted traffic (traffic diverts to the improved road), generated
traffic (new traffic as a result of travel time reduction or diversion from other modes), and
induced traffic (traffic produced by new development created by better access). The above
formulae may be applied for normal traffic estimation and in short-term period only, when
travellers have not realised the change of travel costs. Many studies have shown that
transportation demand is affected by spatial and non-spatial characteristics such as socio-
economic characteristics of travellers as well as the study area, transport costs, geographic
condition of destination, etc. So any transportation demand models should take into account
52
those spatial and non-spatial variables in the model. Overall, the arithmetic growth model
may have several drawbacks as follow:

1. The models cannot capture the effect of socio-economic interaction between zones
connected by a particular route.
2. The models are not commensurate with the CBA method since they cannot capture the
effect of change of road user effect (RUE), the main elements of CBA analysis.
3. The models cannot be applied for road network planning, as they cannot value diverted
traffic (traffic diverted to other routes) and generated traffic (new traffic because of
reduced travel times or diversion from other modes).
4. The models cannot be used to evaluate alternatives other than road development or road
improvement and do nothing. In the case road transport problems such as congestion, the
solution is not merely by adding road capacity, but it could be improvement of public
transport, improvement of other modes (e.g. rail), and so forth.
5. The models cannot be applied in the continuous transport planning, as the modelling step
cannot interact with other steps.

The conventional 4-step method applied in developed countries is often impossible to apply in
developing countries because of the rarity of travel data and data system, and the lack of
socio-economic data (Talvatie 2000). Willumsen (1981) stated that less developed countries
are characterised by elementary problems of the modelling process such as high opportunity
costs of qualified professional work and technical resources, and shortage and high cost of
reliable data.

In order to reduce the deficiencies of transport demand forecasting using the arithmetic
growth model applied in developing countries, there is a need for alternative modelling
approaches. The approaches must be suitable for developing countries situation, which means
that they can overcome the arithmetic growth model deficiencies but can be calibrated using
minimum resources. Such approaches should meet the requirements of data, cost, and
technical resources availability.

53
3.5 Summary

The review on the practice of evaluation system and transport demand forecasting model for
transportation projects can be summarised as follows:

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) method is the common main evaluation system in developed
countries. Criteria not expressed in monetary terms are commonly evaluated separately in
the countries that CBA is in use.
Several countries have extended their evaluation system to multicriteria analysis (MCA).
CBA is one criterion in the countries where MCA is in use.
Every country has its own set of procedures in determining the level of importance of
each criterion.
Several technical aspects are taken into account in the CBA method including
transportation demand forecasting, valuation of time, traffic safety, environmental
impacts, regional economic impacts, and efficiency criteria.
The main problem in the application of MCA is in determining criteria weights in order to
reach the final decision. Giving full freedom to decision makers' subjective judgments
could lead to irrational decisions.
Transport project evaluations in developed countries commonly apply the conventional
four-step or stepwise method. The main difference is in the treatment of induced demand.
Evaluation system of the HDM-4 model usually applied in developing countries is the
engineering-economic approach. This approach is similar to CBA, but the road project is
treated as a private project where it is usually financed through user fees and the main
objectives are to find an alternative that maximise economic benefit (net present
value/NPV) for the whole network within the budget constraint.
Evaluation system of HDM-4 model considers only direct benefits and costs expressed in
monetary terms.
When other costs and benefits are considered, HDM-4 system suggests applying
multicriteria analysis.
There is strong need to develop multicriteria analysis procedure suitable for use in
developing countries.
Arithmetic growth mean method is applied to forecast transport demand (traffic) in 111DM-
4 model.
The arithmetic growth mean method may have several important deficiencies that could
lead to inaccuracy of budget determination.

54
 The main deficiency of the arithmetic growth mean method is that it cannot be applied to
account for the impacts of road development on travel demand.
The other deficiency is that the highway management cycle cannot be fully applied as the
transport demand forecasting model cannot capture the dynamic of the network such as
the impact of the project on the other roads andlor networks.
There is a need for modelling approaches that meet the situations found in developing
countries. Such approaches should meet the requirements of data, cost, and technical
resources availability.

55
 CHAPTER FOUR

4 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
IN TRANSPORTATION PROJECT EVALUATION

4.1 Introduction

The definition of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is varied. It is considered as the most commonly
applied method in project evaluation. It might be the reason why Gillis et al. (1996) stated that
the CBA is another term for project appraisal. In addition, BTRE (2004) mentioned that the
discussions about CBA in Australia and possibly also in other countries are mostly related to
road projects. The CBA is usually applied in the government plan of investments. The
appraisals of public projects outside road sector are generally done using financial analyses.

In general CBA means an analysis of impacts (benefit and cost) of project under consideration
to society in which impacts are converted into monetary terms as far as possible so that it can
be summarised using net benefit measure (BTRE 2004). The philosophy of the CBA is
similar to analysis done by private firms in searching the best investment alternatives.

CBA is designed to allow comparative assessment of projects, in which prioritisation is based

on the benefit-cost ratio. Several technical aspects are taken into account in the analysis
including transportation demand forecasting, valuation of time, traffic safety, environmental
impacts, regional economic impacts, and efficiency criteria. Where it is necessary, financial
analysis is also conducted. One additional feature also being suggested for incorporation in
the project evaluation process is post evaluation (Hayashi & Morisugi 2000).

The application of the CBA has a long history. The U.S Corps of Engineers initiated the
practical development of the CBA in 1936 when the Corps was required to handle the
improvement of waterway system. By the 1950s, the method was established by economists
who developed a consistent set of methods to estimate benefits and costs in order to value
alternatives of project (Watkins 2004).

56
This chapter explores the basic theory of CBA and its decision criteria. The limitations and
criticisms of the CBA are also given. The extension of CBA principles is also presented.

4.2 Principles of the Cost Benefit Analysis

In general, Mackie and Nellthorpe (2001) provided the main features of the CBA as follows:

It takes into account all relevant costs and benefits to community, whoever the planned
projects accrue to. The identification of impacts as well as modelling and forecasting the
impacts of the project is an essential step to provide inputs to the CBA.
It uses individuals' willingness-to-pay (WTP) as the basic of valuation. This individual
value may be adjusted using social values where appropriate.
The benefits and costs are converted into a common and consistent unit, which is money.
It requires a procedure to estimate the value of benefits and costs at different point at time
using the social discount rates as a key parameter. By doing so, the CBA is then able to
totals up the benefits and costs over the life of the project.
It may consist of different units of impacts, on one side are the impacts expressed in
money terms and on the other side are the impacts expressed in physical quantities.

The basic objective of transport projects is to provide better transport service to transport
users. The CBA application is then started with the calculation of benefits or costs of a project
to the transport users, which is commonly called as user benefit estimation.

According to Mackie and Nellthorpe (2001), there are three fundamental concepts in
estimating user benefit in transport CBA: these are willingness-to-pay (WTP), consumer
surplus (CS), and generalised cost (GC). They defined these three concepts as follow: WTP is
the maximum amount of money that an individual consumer would be willing to pay to make
a particular trip from i to j by mode m. CS is a measure of the excess of willingness to pay
over the cost of trip. GC is an amount of money representing the overall cost and
inconvenience to the transport user of travelling between a particular origin (i) and destination
(I) by a particular mode (m).

57
The GC usually consist of three parts namely time cost, user charges and vehicle operating
costs. The GC requires a method to convert travel time into money terms, which is termed as
value of time estimation.

Figure 4.1 below, which assumes that demand curve is approximately linear, can be used to
explain these fundamental concepts of CBA and the user benefit estimation.

(lienaralised
Cost/trip

C Old road

:
Demand

0
D E Daily trips

Figure 4.1 - Consumers' surplus and user benefit

The area under the demand curve is the WTP of society to make trips. If the equilibrium
between demand and supply of the old road is reached at generalised cost OA and daily trips
OD, then the WTP of the society is equal to the trapezoid OCXD.

The total generalised costs of OD trips/day to the society are equal to the rectangle OAXD.
The difference between the WTP of the society to make OD trips/day on the old road
(OCXD) and the total generalised costs the society actually have to pay (OAXD) give us a
total consumers' surplus that equal to the triangle CXA.

The road improvement reduces the generalised costs per trip from OA to OB. On the other
hand, the reduction of generalised costs increases the daily trips from OD to OE and the
consumers' surplus increases from CXA to CYB. The difference between CXA and CYB

(ACS or the difference of consumers' surplus) are the user benefits of the road improvement
project and is equal to rectangle ABYX.

58
It can be noted that the CBA estimates the user benefit by subtracting consumers' surplus of
do-nothing scenario over the do-something scenario.

The user benefit consists of two different parts, the first is the cost-saving components (the
saving per trip (AB) times the number of trips on old road (OD)), and the second is the
consumers' surplus resulted from additional trips (DE) made either by the same traveller or by
additional traveller. The first part is equal to the rectangle ABZX and the second part is equal
to the triangle XYZ. The cost saving can actually be spent on other goods, since it is not taken
into account in the analysis, then it is considered as a minimum estimate of the benefit
(Mishan 1971).

The user benefit can be estimated using a function known as the rule of half (RoH) (Button
2001). Based on Figure 4.1, the function is as follow:

Acs =-1-(AB)(D+E) (4.1)

In a multimodal transport system, it is possible that a policy applied to a particular component

in the system affects other components of the transport system. For instance an improvement
of rail service could reduce road travel demand, then there will be user benefit for rail users
and road users. In such condition, the RoH could still be used to estimate user benefit as long
as the impact of the project can be transformed into generalised costs change between
particular origins and destinations.

However the RoH cannot be applied in certain scenarios i.e. a policy to operate completely
new modes in do-something scenario (the GC of the new modes is not included in the do-
something scenario), a policy to withdraw the operation of existing modes (GC cannot be
included in the do-something scenario), and developments of new trips generators and
attractors (costs cannot be defined) (Mackie & Nelithorpe 2001).

The benefits of transportation projects are not limited to user or consumer only but could also
include producers, as one of the main functions of transport is to support other socio-
economic activities. For example a road development could open an isolated region so that
the community could have better access to education, health, etc. The road development could
also widen market area of farmers in the region. The benefits gained by the producers are
called producer surplus (PS).

59
Producer surplus is derived by subtracting total revenue (TR) with total costs (TC). The total
of consumer surplus and producer surplus is called social surplus. The change of social
surplus is then derived from adding change of consumer surplus with change in producer
surplus.

z\SS=ACS+APS (4.2)

while the change of producer surplus is derived from subtracting the change of TR with TC
(Mackie & Nellthorpe 2001).

APS=ATR-ATC (4.3)

4.3 Consumers' Surplus and User Benefit When Demand

Shifts

Figure 4.1 depicts a situation where the increase of demand is as a result of generalised costs
reduction only and assume no change on exogenous variables such as population, income,
demographic, and so on. The increase of population, income and other socio-economic
variables usually lead to conditions where people are willing to pay more for their trips. This
increase of trips is often referred to as "generated" trip (Dickey & Miller 1984). The
generated trip shifts the demand curve to the right.

60
 Genaralised
Costltrip

Old road

Improved road

S
-New demand

Old demand
curve

0
G E F
D
Daily trips

Figure 4.2 - Consumers' surplus and user benefit when demand and supply shift

Figure 4.2 shows a situation where changes of both demand and supply occur. The demand
change is due to the induced and generated trips, and the supply change is due to the transport
project that reduces the generalised cost. The generated trips increase the demand from D to G
even before implementing of the project. The reduction of generalised cost leads to induced
trips and push the demand further from G to F. The generated trips also change the user
benefit from ABYX to TSVW.

The presence of generated trips implies that some benefits (or disbenefits) could arise even
without the implementation of the project. Based on Figure 4.2, the change of benefits over
time caused by the generated trip is the area of the triangle RTW minus that of triangle CAX.
The change of benefits quantity can be either positive or negative (Dickey & Miller 1984).

4.4 Induced demand

The additional trips as a result of reduction of generalised cost (line DE in Figure 4.1) are
referred to as "induced" demand (Dickey & Miller 1984; Noland 2001). There are actually
several different unit of measurement for induced travel, and no one of those is a correct unit.
It could be vehicles, person, or freight trips, or vehicle, person or tonne kilometres. In general
61
the use of vehicle kilometres is considered to be the most suitable measure, especially for
urban networks. The induced travel is then defined as additional vehicle kilometres as a result
of road investments. The additional vehicle kilometres could occur on either the network as a
whole or on the improved road as a part of the network (Abelson & Hensher 2001).

Litman (1995) defined induced demand as the additional travel resulting from a transportation
improvement, which would not have otherwise occurred. Noland (2001) simplified the
definition as the increase of either short-run or long-run vehicle kilometres of travel resulting
from any infrastructure change.

Noland (2001) stated that the highway capacity improvement could change travel behaviour
such as time shift, route shift, mode shifts, and destination shift, take more travel, and
redistribution of residence and workplace.

The reduction of generalised costs resulting from road improvements could change user
behaviour, which leads to induced travel, in five main ways (U.K. Department of Transport
1993). Those are:

1. Trip generation: road improvements encourage people to make new trips.

2. Trip redistribution: road improvements make unattractive destinations become more
attractive and encourage people to change their destinations.
3. Mode shifts: road improvements reduce congestion, which make trips by car more
attractive than by some other modes such as bus, rail, etc.
4. Route reassignment: road improvements reduce travel time on a particular route and
encourage people to change their routes to the improved route. The induced travel occurs
on the improved route only and not in the whole network.
5. Time shift: road improvements reduce travel time at certain times (usually peak hours)
and encourage people to switch their trip times. The induced travel occurs at those certain
times only and not over the whole day.

The theory of induced demand is similar to the economic law of demand, where the reduction
of price of a particular good will increase the consumption of that good. In the case of road
traffic demand, it can be explained as follow: There is actually a point in a congested road that
constrains further traffic growth in peak-period trips. As there is a tendency of traffic
congestion to maintain equilibrium, so after increasing capacity, the peak-period traffic also
increase until the congestion reach the point again (Litman 2001).

62
A study by Noland (2001) concluded that the addition of extra lane-kilometres increases
travel demand. Furthermore Litman (2001) stated that often a significant part of capacity
expansion of a congested urban road is used up by induced traffic.

The possible existence of induced traffic is an important consideration in road project

evaluation. It in turn requires travel demand models that have ability to take account of
induced demand. The induced demand could reduce estimated generalised cost reduction,
increase many external costs and give relatively modest overall user benefits since it is
composed of marginal value trips (people are actually willing to undertake the trips). Ignoring
the induced traffic in turn could overestimate the benefits of selected alternatives and
overestimate other potential alternatives (Litman 2001).

4.5 Identification of User Cost and Benefit

Figure 4.1 can also be used to explain that there is a difference between total user costs and
benefits. The figures shows that the reduction of generalised cost could actually increase total
user costs. For example from Figure 4.1, it is clear that the rectangle OBYE can be much
bigger than the rectangle OAXD (depends on actual scales that are not shown in a conceptual
diagram such as Figure 4.1).

It then leads to two essential conclusions on the effects of transport projects on income and
resource utilisation. First, the changes of amount of income allocated for non-travel purpose
are the result of the differences in total user costs. For example, if total user costs increase as a
result of transport improvement then this reduces the amount of income allocated for non-
travel purpose (assuming no change on income brought by better transport service). Second,
the amount of resources actually spent in travel is derived from the differences in total user
costs, rather than the benefits. These two conditions are important inputs and should be taken
into account in analysing resource consumption (Dickey & Miller 1984). Failing to identify
user cost and benefit could lead to overestimation or underestimation of alternatives.

63
4.6 Decision Criteria

After identifying the benefits and the costs of project in question, the final decision is
measured using summary measures called the net present value (NPV) and the benefit-cost
ratio (BCR) (Gillis et al. 1996).

(44)

(4.5)

where B1 and C1 are the benefits and costs in year t, i is social discount rate, and n is the life of
the project. A positive NPV indicates that project can be accepted; when there are more than
one do-something alternatives select the alternative with the highest NPV. If there is shortage
of capital, BCR is then employed; the decision is based on the defined marginal acceptable
BCR.

Another decision criterion of economic investments is internal rate of return value (IRR). IRR
is defined as the rate of discount, which gives zero net present value where the present value
of benefits equal to the present value of costs. The investments yielding a rate of return
higher than for example long-term government bonds are justified. The consequence of the
IRR on the decision is that an investment with higher IRR is preferred (Mishan 1971).

4.7 Criticisms of Cost Benefit Analysis

According to Nijkamp and Delfi (1977), the basic problem of CBA is the requirement to
transform all criteria into one single monetary dimension. This limited the scope of practical
application of the CBA, as many planning problems have to consider many non-economic
aspects such as environmental impacts, political preferences, etc.

In recent years, models to value the non-economic impacts of transport in money terms have
been developed and research in this area continues to expand. Daniels and Adamowicz (2000)

64
reviewed models available to value environmental impacts. There are also models available to
value passenger travel time (Jara-Diaz 2000) as well as freight travel time (de Jong 2000).

Although monetary valuation of non-economic impacts is possible, CBA still cannot

accommodate political preferences in the analysis. Furthermore, Daniels and Adamowicz
(2000) stated that valuation of human life is still a controversial issue in environmental impact
valuation.

The application of CBA in road projects that requires valuation of non-economic benefits and
costs might have more difficulties in developing countries. The difficulties are related to the
data availability, data reliability, expertise, and technical resources. In addition the ratio of
vehicle operating cost to total travel cost might be higher than the travel time cost in
developing countries.

Nijkamp and Delft (1977) also added several other shortcomings of the CBA. Those are: (1)
evaluation of external spill-overs is sometimes difficult, often only little information available
regarding demand curves for certain commodities; (2) the basic principles of the CBA such as
the WTP are very hard to apply although they are theoretically useful, the welfare distribution
effects is generally neglected; and (3) the applications contain uncertainties that related to
project life time and the social rate of discount, as well as monetary value of time and non-
economic impacts.

The use of social rate of discount based on optimum economic growth framework may be
unsuitable for developing countries. In some developing countries, decreasing economic
growth happen. In such situations, the decision is based on political economic approach
(Islam 2002).

Talvatie (2000) criticised the application of the CBA in transport project evaluation. Talvatie
(2000) stated that the demand curve, the fundamental part of the CBA (which is also the
function of willingness to pay of consumers for making trips under various prices), is rarely
estimated using the commensurate perceived prices. Such estimation is necessary in order to
apply the economic concept correctly. In practice, a resource based economic evaluation is
applied; the benefit is merely the reduction in the (economic) user costs.

Abelson and Hensher (2001) gave examples to show the differences of results of resource cost
approach and WTP approach when used to evaluate a same project. In the first example, two

65
routes (A and B) connect two towns. A is a route that has beautiful views along the route and
trip cost is $15, and B is a shorter route with trip cost of $10. Consequently, total trips split
between route A and B is 20% and 80%. Suppose an improvement of route A reduce trip cost
to $12 and the total trips split become 50% on A and 50% on B. Resource cost approach will
put $2 per trip cost to all who transfer to route A. In contrast, the WTP approach will put $1.5
($3.0 X 0.5) per trip benefit to all diverted trips. In other example they showed that the use of
resource cost approach leads to an underestimates of the true benefit of a new road if the new
road is more attractive than the competing mode, and leads to an overestimates if the new
road is less attractive than the competing mode.

From the examples above, it is clear that the road attractiveness must be included in the
development of demand curve. The demand curve itself should be based on travel demand
model, and it is rare that the road attractiveness variable is included in travel demand model.
It could be hard to capture such variable in practice.

4.8 Extension of the Cost Benefit Analysis

In order to overcome the limitations of the CBA, several extension of the CBA were
developed. Those are the cost-effectiveness analysis, shadow project approach, and planning
balance sheet method (Nijkamp & Delft 1977).

The main attempt of cost-effectiveness analysis development is to measure the degree to

which an alternative of project attain a priori determined output and impact objectives. A
cost-effectiveness chart is usually developed to give more perception and understanding of the
relative effectiveness of each alternative separately. The attributes can be grouped based on
our categories of inputs, outputs, and impacts. The cost-effectiveness analysis is considered to
be more realistic and comprehensive decision process than the CBA. However it has a
drawback that it is easily fallible to inappropriate political objectives (Nijkamp & Dell 1977;
Dickey & Miller 1984).

The shadow project approach is developed to tackle the problem of intangibles in project
evaluation. The basic idea of this approach is that the costs of, for example, environmental
degradations can be derived from the costs of creating a project to counter the impacts of
those environmental degradations. The project is then so called shadow project, as it does not
need to be actually implemented. The problem is that the impact is sometimes unique, for
66
example there is no equivalent value of a historical building. The shadow project will also
have intangibles, so that second shadow project may need to be defined. It could lead to
indeterminate solutions (Nijkamp & Deift, 1977).

The planning balance sheet is a broad analysis of a project that takes into account all socio-
economic effects of the project by considering different objectives of diverse groups affected
by the project. This method can be considered as a very detailed CBA. In this method, costs
and benefits are not necessarily represented in money terms. Employing an ordinal ranking
procedure that considers various objectives of the various groups can permit alternative
selection. However this method requires large quantity of information and compromise
between the various groups regarding their priorities is needed. This method is then still
having problem with weighing schemes (Nijkamp & Deift, 1977).

4.9 Summary

Some important points can be summarised from literature review on benefit-cost analysis in
this chapter as follows:

In general the CBA means an analysis of impacts (benefit and cost) of project under
consideration to society in which impacts are converted into monetary terms as far as
possible so that it can be summarised using net benefit measure.
The CBA employs willingness to pay principle, where user benefit is derived from
subtracting consumer surplus of improved road with the actual condition of the road.
The reduction of generalised cost could result in induced travel, which has to be taken into
separate account in the analysis.
The presence of induced travel requires transport model that can take into account this
phenomenon.
The application of the WTP principle is very hard to apply in practice.
Identification of benefits and costs is a important task in the CBA.
The CBA has a main drawback in how to deal with relevant impacts of the project that
cannot be transformed to monetary value. Even when model to value non-economic
impacts monetarily is available, the political preference still cannot be included.
The demand curve of CBA is rarely estimated using the commensurate perceived prices.

67
 The social discount rate, which based on optimum economic growth framework, may be
hard to devine in developing countries, where decreasing economic growth may happen.
In order to be able to take into account non-monetary impacts, some adaptations of the
CBA have been done. Those are the cost-effectiveness analysis, shadow project approach,
and planning balance sheet method.

68
 CHAPTER FIVE

5 MULTI-CRITERIA ANALYSIS
IN TRANSPORT PROJECTS EVALUATION

5.1 Introduction

Problems of selecting one alternative from a set of alternatives are often experienced by any
organisations, from the simplest one such as an individual to a complex one such as a nation.
The decision to select an alternative is often difficult. The selection process may involve
several objectives and aspects to value. In the decision making field, such processes are
handled using multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. MCDM consists of two
main classes of methods, namely multiple objective decision making (MODM) and multiple
attribute decision making (MADM) (Hwang & Yoon 1981; Nijkamp, Rietveld & Voogd
1990; Zimmermann 1991; Jankowski 1995). Ribeiro (1996) stated that the term MCDM is
generally used when both MADM and MCDM apply.

MODM methods are usually applied when decision makers have to search for an optimum
solution based on a set of conflicting objectives that must be accomplished concurrently. The
decision space in MODM is continuous and the optimum solution is solved using
mathematical programming. The optimisation process involves two main tasks namely
determination of efficient solutions and determination of the optimal compromise solution
from the complete set of efficient solutions (Ribeiro 1996).

MADM methods are usually applied when decision makers deal with a problem of selecting
an optimum alternative from a set of discrete alternatives based on several, usually
conflicting, criteria and criterion preferences (Hwang and Yoon, 1981; Jankowski, 1995).
Several authors (such as Zeleny 1982; Carlsson & Fuller 1996) term such selection problems
as multiple criteria decision making (MCDM), while in the urban and regional planning field,
it is usually termed as multicriteria analysis (MCA), multicriteria evaluation or multicnteria
method (Nijkamp & Delft 1977; Voogd 1983; Munda 1995; Salminen, Hokkanen &
Lahdalema 1998). In general MADM is called multicnteria analysis or multicriteria
evaluation (Jankowski 1995).

69
In line with the terms used in urban and regional planning, authors in transportation project
evaluation commonly refer to the problems as multicritena analysis (see for example
Tsamboulas, Yiotis & Panou (1999), Yeh, Deng & Chang (2000)' Sayers, Jessop & Hills
(2003)' Gercek, Karpak & Kilncaslan 2004). For this reason, multicriteria analysis is also
used in this thesis.

The use of multicriteria analysis in transportation projects evaluation is considered since there
is always a conflict of analysis in regard with the impacts of the project. The conflict arises as
the impacts can be viewed from various aspects (i.e. technical, socio-economic,
environmental and political), so that the transportation project evaluation will be characterised
with a process to find acceptable compromise alternatives. From the viewpoint of some
aspects, the impacts are often very difficult to value in monetary terms. These conditions can
make the application of CBA alone inadequate for transportation project evaluation. Even
when all the impacts can be converted in monetary terms, we still cannot take into account
explicitly non-monetary important criteria such as political priorities in the CBA
(Tsamboulas, Yiotis & Panou 1999).

This chapter reviews multicriteria analysis methods in general and multicriteria analysis
application in transportation project evaluation.

5.2 Formulation of Multicriteria Analysis Problems

There are wide differences between MCA methods. The differences between MCA methods
can be seen from two points of view. First, from the terminological view, there are many
differences among authors as described in the introduction. Second, from the methodological
view, there are differences regarding the methods for rating alternatives and for assessing
decision weights.

In spite of these differences, there are actually certain common principles among the MCA
methods. These include: the existence of alternatives, multiple criteria, conflict among
criteria, incommensurable units, decision weights, decision matrix and criterion scores,
aggregation functions, and sensitivity analysis (Hwang & Yoon 1981; Voogd 1983; Chen &
Hwang, 1992; Jankowski 1995).

70
 The existence of alternatives: The existence of alternatives is the starting point of the
multicriteria analysis application since its main tasks are to screen, prioritise, select and
rank those alternatives. The number of alternatives is a finite number and could be from
several to thousands.
Multiple criteria: In multicriteria analysis problem, the alternatives are valued from
different aspects and point of views. It is the task of people responsible in taking the
decision to generate the relevant criteria with respect to the aspects and viewpoints
considered. The number of criteria is a finite number and can be between several to
around hundreds. When there are a large number of criteria, the criteria could be
considered in a hierarchical structure. The hierarchy consists of major criteria, each major
criterion consists of sub-criteria, and each sub-criterion could also have sub-criteria
(Nijkamp, Rietveld & Voogd 1990; Chen & Hwang 1992). Figure 5.1 shows 2 levels of
criteria. In their example, Chen and Hwang (1992) showed seven major criteria and seven
sub-criteria (SC) in each branch due to an assumption that an observer can give us an
absolute judgment of an object when the greatest number of information items lies
between seven plus or minus two.

Multicriteria Analysis Objective

Criteria I Criteria 2 Criteria Criteria n

SC11 SC12 SC1.. SCIk SC,1 SC22 SC,.. SC2. SC.. SC.. SC.. SC.. SC.1 Sn.. Sn,

Figure 5.1 Hierarchical structure of a multicriteria analysis problem

Source: adapted from Chen and Hwang (1992)

Conflict among criteria: In MCA applications, a conflict between criteria is often present.
An alternative could be the best valued from a certain criterion, but could be the worst
valued from other criteria.
Incommensurable unit: Each criterion in MCA application could have different units of
measurement. For example in selecting a road project alternative, the project cost is
71
 ____

measured in monetary term (e.g. dollars), the noise impact is measured in decibels, the
travel time is indicated by minutes, etc.
Decision weights: Decision weights generally represent the importance of criteria in MCA
problems. Decision makers can assess the decision weights directly. There are also some
methods available to assess the decision weights. The weight of each criterion is usually
normalised and the total of decision weights is one. In case of n criteria, the weight vector
(W) is as shown in the equation 4.1 (Chen & Hwang 1992).

WT = (w1,w2 and = 1, >0 (5.1)

Decision matrix and criterion scores: The multicriteria analysis problem can be expressed
in a matrix format, namely the decision matrix. For instance an individual H has to make a
decision, then a matrix H (m x n matrix) is formed where there must be
alternatives/options A (i=1, 2, 3,.. .,m) in y axis and criteria X) (j=1, 2, 3,.. .,n) in x axis.
The matrix contains values, which are the rating of alternative A- with respect to criteria
xi.

Table 5.1 Decision Matrix

x1 x2 ... xn
A1 x11 x12 ...
A2 x21 ...
H= .. ... ...
Am xml ...

Because criteria usually have inconsistent units and scales, criteria normalisation is
needed. The normalisation transforms values in decision matrix into criterion scores
(ca). The decision matrix H above then is also transformed into decision matrix C. In a
mathematical equation, the decision matrix is as follow:

c11 c12

21
C= (5.2)

cm! cm2 .. Cmn

Where = the criterion scores of alternative A1 with respect to criteria

72
 Aggregation functions: The final result of multicriteria analysis is produced through
aggregation functions where criterion scores and criterion weights are combined. There
are many aggregation functions available.

Sensitivity analysis: A sensitivity analysis is needed in multicritena analysis to deal with

the uncertainty, the imprecision, and the inaccuracy related to the information used in the
process. Through this analysis, we can examine the degree of importance of each
criterion. It is necessary for this to be done prior to final decision (Jankowaski 1995).

It should be noted that amongst the multicriteria analysis principles, aggregation function and
criteria weights determination are the main parts of multicriteria analysis problems. Those
two principles are often used to classify different multicriteria analysis methods.

Jankowski (1995) provide general structure applied in multicritena analysis as shown in

Figure 5.2.

SET OF ALTERNATIVES

SET OF CRITERIA

CRITERION SCORES

DECISION TABLE
Al A2 ... An
Cl
C3

Cm

AGGREGATION FUNCTION

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

FINAL RECOMMENDATION

Figure 5.2 A general structure of multicriteria analysis

Source: Adapted from Jankowski (1995), p. 255
73
5.3 Multicriteria Analysis Methods

There are many multicriteria analysis methods available in the literature and many of them
use similar principles. Those principles are employed to classify different multicritena
analysis methods. Hwang and Yoon (1981) classified different multicriteria analysis methods
according to the information required from decision maker. They defined three classes of
methods namely no information from decision maker, information on attributes, and
information on alternatives. The three sub-classes were formed according to information on
attributes, namely standard level, ordinal, cardinal, and marginal rate of substitution. Two
sub-classes were formed based on information on alternative, namely pairwise preference and
order of pairwise preference. In this classification method, Hwang and Yoon (1981) identified
17 methods.

In Chen and Hwang (1992), a modification of the Hwang and Yoon (1981) classification
method was presented. The modification reduced the methods using information on
alternatives. The most significant modification was the elimination of the Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) from the classification system as AHP was not considered as a new
method, but merely a combination of the simple additive weighting (SAW) method and the
eigenvalue method, therefore they considered that AHP as a variant of the SAW method.
Figure 5.3 illustrates the Chen and Hwang (1992) classification method.

74
 Type of Information Salient feature of Major Classes of
from Decision Maker Information Method

Conjunctive Method
(Satisficing Method)

Disjunctive Method

Lexicograph Method
Elimination by Aspect
Lexicograph Semiorder

Linear Assignment
Method
Simple Additive
Weighting Method
ELECTRE
TOPSIS
Weighting Product
Distance from Target

Figure 5.3 A classification of MCA methods based on information from decision

maker
Source: Adapted from Chen and Hwang (1992), p.23

From the different major classes of method presented in Figure 5.3, one can also classify the
methods based on the cognitive processing level. The cognitive processing level of
multicriteria analysis consists of two classes, namely compensatory and non-compensatory
approaches (Hwang & Yoon 1981; Jankowski 1995).

The methods assuming that the score of any alternative with respect to a single criterion can
trade off those of the same alternative with respect to other criteria are classified as the
compensatory approach. It is possible that the advantage of any criteria can compensate the
disadvantage of others. The non-compensatory approach is the opposite of the compensatory
approach. In compensatory approach, criterion priorities are presented as cardinal weights,
while in most non-compensatory approach only ordinal ranking is needed. As consequence,
the need of the decision-maker's cognitive processing level is higher in compensatory
approaches than in non-compensatory approach (Jankowski 1995). Based on the cognitive

75
processing level and aggregation function methods, the multicriteria analysis methods can be
structured as Figure 5.4.

Multicriteria
Analysis

Dominance
Conjunctive
Disjunctive
Lexicographic

Figure 5.4 - A classification of MCA methods based on the cognitive

processing level and the aggregation function
Source: Adapted from Jankowski (1995), p.257

Multicriteria analysis methods included in the compensatory approach are Weighted

Summation (it is the same as SAW method), Concordance Analysis (usually called as
ELECTRE (ELimination Et Choice Translating REality)), Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP),
MATS (Multi-Attribute Tradeoff System), TOPSIS (the Technique for Order Preference by
Similarity to Ideal Solution), AIIVI (Aspiration-level Interactive Method), and IvIDS (Multi-
Dimensional Scaling) (Hwang and Yoon 1981; Jankowski 1995).

Other ways to classify multicriteria analysis methods are by identifying the type of data used
and the number of decision makers involved in the decision process. If we look at the data
used, we may classify multicriteria analysis methods into deterministic methods, stochastic
methods, and fuzzy methods. It is also possible that in one multicnteria analysis problem, we
use more than one type of data (e.g. stochastic and fuzzy data). If we look at the number of

76
decision makers in the decision process, we have single decision maker methods and group
decision making methods (Triantaphyllou et a!. 1998). Most multicriteria analysis methods
were built for deterministic situations.

Stochastic multicriteria analysis methods deal with the determination of criteria weights
and/or score of alternative with respect to a criterion based on the subjective judgments of
decision makers. The judgments become stochastic when there are a number of values for the
same judgment. This situation commonly happens in a group decision making, where the
determination of criteria weights and/or alternative score with respect to a criterion must take
into account different judgments of different decision makers (Ramanathan 1997). The
stochastic multicriteria analysis methods can be used to account for uncertainty of judgments
by using interval judgments instead of point estimates. Furthermore, the use of interval
judgments can capture both uncertainties arising from individuals involved in the decision
process as well as the dispersion of judgments in a group decision making (Cagno, Caron &
Perego 2001).

Fuzzy multicriteria analysis methods take the advantage of fuzzy set theory capability in
capturing imprecise and fuzzy data. The imprecision of the data may come from
unquantifiable information (e.g. safety, comfort, etc.), incomplete information (e.g. speed,
such as "about 100 kmlh", etc.), unobtainable information (e.g. a very secret information,
high cost data, etc.), and partial ignorance (e.g. only knows part of the facts). There is another
class of decision making methods in a fuzzy environment called as the fuzzy ranking methods
that are used to determine the ranking of different fuzzy numbers (Chen and Hwang 1992).
There have been many application of fuzzy multicriteria analysis, for instance to evaluate
attack helicopters (Cheng, Yang & Hwang 1999) and to evaluate performance of bus
companies (Yeh, Deng & Chang 2000).

5.4 Application of Multicriteria Analysis in Transportation

Projects Evaluation

Multicriteria analysis method is considered suitable for transportation project evaluation as

the evaluation involves technical, socio-economic, environmental, and political value
judgments in which conflict between those value judgments is evident. The use of a single-
criterion (monetary approach) alone is then considered inadequate. Multicriteria analysis can

77
facilitate the search for acceptable compromise solutions (Tsamboulas, Yionis & Panou
1999).

Amongst many multi-criteria analysis methods, Tsamboulas, Yioms and Panou (1999)
identified five most suitable methods for transportation project evaluation. The methods were
identified on the basis of their track record of application and user acceptance in the appraisal
practice, and also on the basis of their applicability, data requirements, ease of use, and utility
of results to different set of problem situation. Those five methods are REGIME, ELECTRE
family, analytical hierarchy process (AHP), multiple attribute utility approach (MAUT), and
ideal point approach (ADAM method). The last three methods (AHP, MAUT, and ADAM)
can be classified in one class, namely additive methods.

Furthermore, Tsamboulas, Yionis and Panou (1999) evaluated those five methods based on
their adequacy in handling complex and multidimensional evaluation of transportation
projects. A method is considered to be adequate if it has four main characteristics, namely
transparency, simplicity, robustness, and accountability. A method is considered to be
transparent if it is understood and well interpreted by decision makers. A method is
considered to be simple if it can provide a crisp and well-defined method to represent
complex and multidimensional decision situations. A method is considered to be robust if it
can be used to analyse inputs related to the performance of different transport initiatives and
to produce simple output able to be used to evaluate direct and indirect effects of the
initiatives. Accountability of multicriteria analysis methods means that the methods must be
capable of use to backtrack the decision through different stages of the process. Table 5.2
summarises the performance of the five multicriteria analyses for transportation project
evaluation based on the judgments of a panel of experts.

78
 Table 5.2 Performance of Five Multicriteria Analysis Methods

Criteria REGIME ELECTRE MAUT AHP ADAM

TRANSPARENCY
Copes better with real world situation? ** *** **
Offer decision analysis closest to human 'K ** *** *** ***
rational approach?
Is well structured and easy to follow? 'K ** ** *** **

Uses straightforward mathematical 'K ** *** *** 'K

approximations to represent reality

SIMPLICITY ** 'K ** *** **

ROBUSTNESS
Treatment of any number of project 'K'K ** 'K*'K *** 'K**

Treatment of any number of criteria 'K *** *** 'K** *'K'K

Treatment of uncertainty 'K * **'K ** 'K'K

Encouragement of special interest group 'K'K * * *'K* 'K

Sensitivity 'K ** *'K'K *** ***

ACCOUNTABILITY * *** ** ** 'K'K

Note: very good, ** good, * not good.

Source: Adapted from Tsamboulas, Yionis and Panou (1999), p. 413

Tsamboulas Yionis and Panou (1999) did not arrive at any conclusions that a certain method
is the optimum method for transportation project evaluation. They suggested that the additive
methods are the most straightforward methods for transport project appraisal. Table 5.2 may
also suggest that Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is the method that satisfies almost all the
listed criteria. In addition, based on the application of the five methods, Tsamboulas Yionis
and Panou (1999) indicated that the outcome of A}IP method might be considered as a
compromise solution.

Sayers, Jessop and Hills (2003) and Bana e Costa (2001) also recommended the use of
additive methods, especially the linear additive model (SAW). As stated in the previous
section AHP may be seen as a variant of SAW. The linear additive model is widely used in
public sector decision making. It is a method that is robust and provides a largely intuitive
response to the problem of rank ordering of transport initiatives. Within this method, the
various impacts of each alternative for a project are weighted using numerical values called
criteria weights. The weighted criteria are then totalled up to derive a single value for each
alternative by which the alternatives are ranked (see formula 5.4). This method is similar to
79
the cost benefit analysis (CBA) where monetary weightings are applied. In general the basic
form of the simple additive weighting (SAW) method is (Voogd, 1983; Jankowski, 1995):

= (5.3)

or

C11 C12 ... W1

S2 = C21 C22 W2
x (54)

5m Cmi Cm2 ..

Where 5, = appraisal score for alternative i, and and are as before. It implies that the
higher is the value of 5, the higher is the rank.

As discussed in chapter 3, the main difficulty in applying linear additive model to transport
project appraisal is in determining criteria weights. In the UK, the criteria weights were
determined by applying decision-makers value judgments. It was then possible that different
decision makers form different conclusions about a final score of an alternative (Sayers,
Jessop & Hills 2003).

The use of the decision maker value judgments of criteria weights method was unsuccessful
in France where it wasted public funds and produced clearly irrational decisions (Quinet
2000). It also happened that there were large differences between modes in important criteria
such as the value of time or index of efficiency. For these reasons, the multi-criteria
evaluation was discarded and practice returned to the use of monetary evaluation, where
standardised monetary values are used for most criteria (Quinet 2000).

Setting a consistent standard set of criteria weights could actually solve this difficulty, but it is
argued that the weight of a criterion could vary in different cases. It can also reduce flexibility
of the method in taking into account the particular objectives of each project. On the other
hand, giving full freedom to the decision-makers could lead to the problems experienced in
France and to the lack of transparency and accountability (Sayers, Jessop & Hills 2003). It
could then be noted that there is a need for criteria weights determination method that are both
consistent as well as flexible.

80
5.5 Criteria Weights Determination Methods

Criteria weights determination is an important part of multicriteria analysis as alternatives are

selected based on several criteria and criterion weights. Criteria weights are the key point in
obtaining the total scores of alternatives and most importantly in forming the conclusion of
multicriteria analysis problems. Most multicriteria analysis methods use criteria weights to
assess the overall scores of the alternatives. The definition and the interpretation of criteria
weights are different between authors. Because of the difficulties in measuring and
interpreting the criteria weights, it is generally stated that criterion weight measures the
importance of a criterion in the multicnteria analysis problem under consideration. The roles
of criteria weights are also different depending on multicriteria analysis methods (Choo,
Schoner & Wedley 1999).

The criteria determination methods could be classified into two main groups namely objective
approaches and subjective approaches. Criteria weight determination is a difficult task,
especially subjective approaches. It is the point where decision makers have to make
compromise before taking final decision. It is often time consuming, especially when there is
no agreement between stakeholders of the problem under consideration

5.5.1 Objective Approaches

In the objective approaches, criteria weights are derived from information contained in each
criterion through mathematical models (without decision maker intervention) (Diakoulaki,
Mavrotas & Papayannakis 1995; Ma, Fan & Huang 1999). Objective weights are useful when
the data of decision matrix are known (Hwang and Yoon, 1981). The methods to determine
objective weights are usually based on the contrasting intensities of the criteria. Consequently,
the more differentiated the criterion the higher is the weight of the criterion. There are two
methods namely Entropy method (Zeleny 1982) and standard deviation method (Diakoulaki,
Mavrotas & Papayannakis 1995).

Diakoulaki, Mavrotas and Papayannakis (1995) developed a model called CRITIC (CRiteria
Importance Through Intercriteria Correlation) that takes into account both the contrast
intensity of each criterion and the conflict between different criteria. Diakoulaki, Mavrotas
and Papayannakis (1995) stated that the conflict between different criteria is important in

81
multicriteria analysis. Multicritena analysis does not need to be done if the performance of
the alternatives in all evaluation criteria is in complete concordance (i.e. highly correlated)
since the final ranking will be similar to the ranking of each criterion. The addition of a new
criterion that is not highly correlated to others will add a significant amount of information
and may change the final ranking.

5.5.2 Subjective Approaches

In subjective approaches, criteria weights are derived from decision maker subjective
judgments. In order to obtain the subjective judgments, the analyst usually gives decision
makers a set of designed questions. The designs of questions are different depending on the
aggregation rules. The designs of questions typically require decision makers to give their
subjective judgments in comparative terms and in absolute terms, or in relative measurement
and absolute measurement (Saaty 2004).

Interpretation of criteria weights in subjective approaches is very important. Most subjective

approaches assume that all decision makers clearly understand the interpretation of criteria
weights. This assumption rarely happens in reality. Proper interpretation will lead to better
design of questions given to decision makers in the elicitation process (Choo, Schoner &
Wedley 1999).

There are many methods to derive the subjective preference of decision makers regarding
criteria weights. Scholl et al. (2004) listed four methods namely multiattribute value theory
(MAVT), outranking methods, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), and conjoint analysis (CA).

MAVT is applied to continuously scaled attributes. MAVT is largely based on fundamental

principles of economic utility theory, in particular is that preference on an attribute must be
independent from others. Outranking methods requires a decision maker to set different
thresholds to determine values of different indices that will be used measure the credibility of
the concordance or the discordance with the hypothesis that an alternative i outranks an
alternative j. AHP is based on relative measurement where a decision maker is required to
judge the relative importance of two criteria. AIIP also relies on utility principles but allows
the decision maker to be inconsistent. CA requires decision makers to give their judgments on
alternatives (Scholl et al. 2004).

82
Salo and Hamalainen (1992) extended the model based on utility principles to allow decision
makers to give interval judgments or imprecise ratio statements instead of exact statements.
The interval judgments indicate the ranges for the relative importance of the attributes. Linear
programming is applied to transform the interval judgments into alternatives preference.

Sayers, Jessop and Hills (2003) proposed the imprecise ratio statements method to
supplement the UK system of transport project appraisal (NATA). In the imprecise ratio
statements method, the decision maker is asked to set bounds for the ratio between criterion
weights. For example the decision maker can judge that travel time is between 0.5 higher than
cost and 0.09 less than cost. Criteria are linked using a criteria relationship network (CRN)
(see Figure 5.5). We need to define central criterion (i.e. cost) and then connect one criteria to
another in which no single criterion is left unconnected to the rest. There are six constraints
(C) in the following criteria relationship network.

C6
TT>O.06C
TT<O.09C
C3
s<11c
S>9C

Figure 5.5 Criteria relationship network

Source: Adapted from Sayers, Jessop and Hills (2003), p. 103

In the Sayers, Jessop and Hills (2003) method, the objective function (to be mrnimised) is the
variance of the overall scores of the alternatives under consideration. Criterion weights are
determined once the minimum variance is found. They claimed that the method has degrees
of both consistency and flexibility. The method may have deficiencies in terms of
transparency and simplicity, especially for applications in developing countries where the
83
capacity of decision makers to understand the procedure might be limited. Another deficiency
might relate to one of robustness criteria, namely encouragement of special interest groups,
since it is not clear how the method deals with group decision making.

The most common method to derive criteria weights in multicriteria analysis is perhaps the
eigenvector method of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP can also be applied to
derive criteria weights from interval judgments given by decision maker (Cagno, Caron &
Perego 2001).

There are some applications of AHP in transport evaluation. Saito (1987) used AHP to
evaluate bridge improvement programs. AHP was employed to derive numerical values to be
used in evaluation as well as to transform and aggregate different judgments of different
decision makers. Tracz and Wawrzynkiewicz (1993) used AHP in the selection of public
transport system alternatives. Khasnabis and Chaudry (1994), based on their application of
AHP in evaluating transit privatisation projects in Detroit metropolitan found that A}IP is
feasible tool for priority ranking of transportation projects. Tabucanon and Lee (1995), in
their study of evaluation of rural highway improvement projects in Korea, concluded that the
application of AHP gave more balanced outcomes for various conflicting criteria compared to
traditional economic evaluation method. Klungboonkrong and Taylor (1999) used AHP to
transfer and aggregate knowledge of experts regarding environmental sensitivity of urban
road network. Gercek, Karpak & Kilncaslan (2004) employed AHP to evaluate three
alternatives of rail transit networks in Istanbul, where A}IP was found to be useful for
multifaceted planning process.

5.6 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AIIP)

In the AHP method, Saaty (1980) used the principle eigenvector of a positive pairwise
comparison matrix to derive criteria weights from decision makers' subjective judgments. In
this method, decision makers are asked to compare the relative importance of pairs of criteria.
The AMP is one of the most and widely applied methods in the decision making field
(Ramanathan 1997). It is applied in various disciplines such as regional planning, physical
planning, politics, etc. (Saaty 1994a and 1995). It has been applied in over a thousand papers,
books, reports, and dissertations (Saaty, 1994b). When working with AHP in multicriteria
analysis problems, there are three steps that must be follow namely decomposition,
prioritisation, and synthesis (Saaty 1980; Vargas 1990).
84
5.6.1 Decomposition

Decomposition is needed when the decision making process involves several criteria as well
as sub-criteria such as shown in Figure 5.1. The decision maker is required to form
multicriteria analysis problem in a hierarchical structure started from objective until the most
detailed elements of decision under consideration. The hierarchical structure forms the base of
the decision process that interrelates and chains all decision elements in the hierarchical
structure from the highest level to the lowest one. The highest level of the hierarchy is the
global objective, followed by more detailed decision elements (e.g. criteria), and the lowest
level of the hierarchy is occupied by a set of decision alternatives (Saaty 1980). Figure 5.6 is
an example of the AHP hierarchical structure used in selecting the best rail network in
Istanbul (Gercek, Karpak & Kilncaslan 2004).

Overall Goal

Criteria and
Priorities

Alternatives

Figure 5.6 AHP hierarchical structure to select the best rail transit network
Source: Adapted from Gercek, Karpak and Kilncaslan (2004), p. 225

In the decomposition step, knowledge, experiences and expertise of the decision makers
involved are very important. It is the main task in AHP application before asking for decision
makers' judgment. The more complex the decision problem the more complex is the
hierarchical structure, and an increase in the number of hierarchical levels and decision
elements in each level will increase the required input significantly (Zehedi 1996; Saaty
1 994b).

85
5.6.2 Prioritisation

Based on the hierarchical structure established, pairwise comparison can be done for all
decision elements occupying each hierarchical level and having the same parent elements in
the next higher level. In order to gain the subjective judgments of the relative importance of
two criteria, the analyst could ask the decision makers to give their judgments based on a
judgment scale such as shown in Table 5.3. The applicability and effectiveness of these
judgment scales has been theoretically and empirically validated (Harker and Vargas 1987;
Saaty 1990a and 1994a).

For example an analyst considering a project aimed at reducing traffic congestion could ask
the following question of the decision makers: 'In order to value alternatives for solving
traffic congestion on route 36, which factor, between travel time and safety, is more
important, and by how much?'.

86
 Table 5.3 Judgment scale of relative importance for pairwise comparison
Intensity of Definition Explanation
Importance
1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the
objective.
3 Moderate importance Experience and judgment slightly favour one
activity over another.
5 Strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favour one
activity over another.
7 Very strong or demonstrated An activity is favoured very strongly over
importance another, its dominance demonstrated in
practice.
9 Extreme importance The evidence favouring one activity over
another is of the highest possible order of
affirmation.
2, 4, 6, 8 For interpolation between the Sometimes one needs to interpolate a
above values compromise judgment numerically because
there is no good word to describe it.
Reciprocals If activity i has one of the A comparison mandated by choosing the
of above above nonzero numbers smaller element as the unit to estimate the
assigned to it when compared larger one as a multiple of that unit.
with activity], then] has the
reciprocal value when
compared with i
Rationales Ratios arising from the scale If consistency were to be forced by obtaining
n numerical values to span the matrix
1.1-1.9 For tied activities When elements are close and nearly
indistinguishable; moderate is 1.3 and
extreme is 1.9

Source: Saaty (1994b), p.26

The pairwise comparison is summarised in a matrix form. If we call equation 5.5 as matrix A
= aU, then:

a11 a12 ... 1 w1 Lw2 ... w1

=
A= (5.5)

... amn Lw1 Lw2 ... 1

Equation 5.5 is a reciprocal matrix where all the elements are positive. It contains the derived
pairwise comparison, = (w1 and are the relative importance of criteria i and],
respectively), their reciprocals, = 1/au, and unity as its diagonal elements = 1. Zahedi
(1995) described that in general all diagonal elements in square matrix A are equal to unity

87
and the triangle under the diagonal line are always the reciprocal of the corresponding triangle
above the diagonal line. As a consequence, the number of pairwise comparison is (n(n-1)/2),
where n is the number of criteria. In other words, we do pairwise comparison only on a half of
the matrix (Saaty 1994b). Saaty (1980) advised that the maximum number of decision
elements (e.g. criteria) to be pairwise compared should be less than or equal to nine.

If we multiply matrix A with vector of weights, W, (assuming that the vector of weights, W,
are known) then this yields A W = n W (a system of homogenous linear equations) where W is
termed as a principal right eigenvector of A and n is therefore the eigenvalue of A:

(AnI)W=O (5.6)

or

1 w1 I w2 ... w1 I w1 w1

W2 / 1 ... W2 / W,, W2 W2
Aw= : : : : :
(5.7)

W,, / W1 W1, / W2 ... 1 W,,

If decision makers judgments are perfectly consistent, in which all pairwise comparisons are
equal to (for i,j, and k = 1, 2, 3, ..., n), then the principal right eigenvector of A is
equal to n (Saaty 1990a). However, perfectly consistent judgments (equation 5.7) are rarely
found in reality, so that the eigenvalue of A equal to n is also rare. As a consequence, the
largest eigenvalue will be always greater than or equal to n and equation 5.7 is
transformed to:

AW=2maxW (5.8)

The system of linear equation (equation 5.7) can be used to determine the relative importance
for all pairwise-compared elements. The vector of weights, W, is obtained from normalising
the eigenvector connected to the largest eigenvalue to sum 1. Because all columns of A

differ by a multiplicative constant, the solution of W of equation 5.7 is unique (Saaty 1980;
Hwang and Yoon 1981; Banai-Kasham 1989; Scholl et al. 2004).

88
Several methods have been developed in order to calculate the principal right eigenvector (W)
as well as its largest eigenvalue of the square matrix A (equation 5.5). Those methods
are eigenvalue method, the Average of Normalised Columns (ANC) method, the
Normalisation of Row Averages (NRA) method, and the Normalisation of the Geometric
Mean of the row (NGM) method. Amongst those methods, the eigenvalue method has been
found to be the best method (Saaty 1980; Saaty and Vargas 1987). The NGM has an
advantage that it is mathematically easy to apply (Klungboonkrong 1998). Equation 5.9 is the
NGM method to estimate the principal right eigenvector (W) and equation 5.10 is its largest
eigenvalue.

WI = (5.9)

and

2max (5.10)

The closeness between and n can be used to measure the degree of inconsistency of the
square matrix A. The closer to n the more consistent is the square matrix A. Saaty (1980)
established Consistency Index (CI) of the square matrix A.

= (A-n) (5.11)

In order to decide whether the CI is acceptable or not, Saaty (1980) also provided the Random
Consistency Index (RI), which is the average CI of a randomly generated reciprocal matrices
(500 sample size) with dimension n. The degree of inconsistency of the square matrix A can
be measured by the ratio of CI to RI, which is called the Consistency Ratio (CR). We can
conclude that the matrix is sufficiently consistent and accept the matrix when CR0. 1. If
CR>0. 1, it can be concluded that the inconsistency is too large and unacceptable, so that
decision makers must revise their judgments.

89
 Table 5.4 The Random Consistency Index (RI)

n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RI 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.89 1.11 1.25 1.35 1.40 1.45

Source: Saaty (1994b), pA.2

5.6.3 Synthesis

In the synthesis step, the local relative importance of all decision elements contained in all
hierarchical levels are aggregated to achieve the global relative importance of each decision
element (alternatives) at the lowest level of the hierarchy, which can then be used by the
decision maker to rank or select alternatives. The global relative importance of all decision
elements at the level k with respect to the decision element at the top level can be calculated
using the following formula (Saaty, 1980):

k
C[1,k]= [I B. (5.12)
i=2

where: C[1, k] = The global relative importance of all decision elements at the level k with
respect to the decision element at the top level,
= is the ni_i by n, matrix with rows containing the calculated W,
ni = the number of decision elements in level i.

Vargas (1990) stated that equation 5.10, the additive compositional rule, has the advantage
compared to other methods, of estimating the global relative importance of all determined
alternatives from the local relative importance of decision elements at all levels, in which it
has intuitive understanding of the apportionment of the whole into parts.

By using equation 5.10, the global relative importance of all alternatives at the lowest level of
the hierarchy is the total of their weighted local relative importance, in which the weights are
the global relative importance of all the parent elements (e.g. criteria or sub-criteria). It means
that the global relative importance of all decision elements (e.g. criteria) at level 2 of the

90
hierarchy will always be equal to their local relative importance, and the global relative
importance of all decision elements at level 3 of the hierarchy is derived by weighting their
local relative importance with the global relative importance of their parent elements, level 2
(Saaty 1994b).

5.6.4 AHP and Group Decision Making

In most public investment decisions, the decision making process will be characterised by the
involvement of more than one decision maker as there will be several parties affected by the
investment. In such decision situations, the final decision must take into account the interests
of all affected parties or all decision makers involved in the process. Thus, multicriteria
analysis employed in the evaluation must be able to offer a feasible technique to do so.

AHP can also be used for group decision making problems. Easley, Valacich and
Venkataramanan (2000) stated that the application of AHP to group decisions is an active area
of research. Saaty (1989) introduced a method called the geometric mean method (GIVIM) to
integrate different individual judgments and produce group judgment. In the GMM, the
pairwise comparison matrix (equation 5.5) contains the geometric mean of the pairwise
comparison of each decision maker. The group relative importance of all decision elements
can then be determined using methods to calculate for the principal right eigenvector (W) as
well as its largest eigenvalue (2,nax) (e.g. NGM method). The reciprocal property of AHP still
exists in the group pairwise comparison using GMM.

H
(5.13)

where, ar = a group pairwise comparison element in the group pairwise comparison matrix,
a pairwise comparison element in the reciprocal square matrix A by a decision

maker h,
H = the total number of decision makers.

The consistency of group decision making using AHP can also be measured using a method
similar to that for single decision maker. The group consistency index is defined as:

91
 GCI = 2max fl
(5.14)

where, is the largest right eigenvalue estimated from the group decision making. The
group consistency ratio (GCR) is determined using method similar to typical AHP.

5.6.5 Modifications of AHP

As one of the most popular and widely used decision tools, AHP has attracted many
researchers. Consequently, A}{P also has been criticised and modifications suggested. One of
the most influential criticisms was that of Belton and Gear (1983) regarding the case of rank
abnormality when using the original AHP. The abnormality concerns with the change of
ranking orders (rank reversal) of all alternatives when we add new alternatives or eliminate
old alternatives from the original set of alternatives. Belton and Gear (1983) then proposed
the revised analytic hierarchy process (RAHP). In RAHP, the normalisation of values of
the decision matrix is done by dividing the elements of each colunm in the decision matrix by
the maximum value in the colunm instead of the column sum. This criticism started many
debates and a heated discussion (Triantaphyllou and Baig, 2004). The debates in turn have
created some useful modifications of AHP, in which Saaty (1994) finally accepted the RAHP
and called it as ideal mode AHP.

Overall, Saaty (1 994b) provided three options in the prioritisation of decision alternatives
using AHP namely the distributive mode, the ideal mode and the absolute methods. The
distributive mode is the original AHP, where the elements of each column in the decision
matrix is normalised by dividing them by the total of the column. Rank reversal is permitted
in the distributive mode. The ideal mode is as explained above in which it is similar to RAHP.
Rank reversal is not permitted in the ideal mode. The absolute mode is similar to the two
other methods, but it uses absolute measurements (e.g. very low, low, medium, high and very
high) in considering the local relative importance of all alternatives. Rank reversal will not
occur in absolute mode.

Recently Saaty (2004) stated that there are two ways of creating priorities, through relative
measurement and absolute measurement. Comparisons occur in both methods, each
alternative is compared with many other alternatives in relative measurement, and each

92
alternative is compared with one known or imagined ideal alternative in absolute
measurement. Absolute measurement process is called rating alternatives. Rank should be
preserved in rating alternatives as they are assumed to be independent. Rank may not always
be preserved in comparing alternatives as they are assumed to be dependent. Rank can be
preserved in comparing alternatives if we use idealisation instead of normalisation. Thus, it
depends on the decision situation weather rank should be preserved or rank could be adjusted
as necessary.

Another important modification of AHP is the multiplicative AHP (MAHP) developed by

Lootsma (as cited in Ramanathan 1997). In MAHP, the comparative judgment of the decision
maker is converted into a numerical integer value using a logarithmic scale. The preference
ratio then become:

you
(5.15)

where y is a scale parameter. The logarithmic least square technique (LLST) is used to obtain
weight w, by minimising the expression:

(lnw1
i=I j>i

subject to the multiplicative normalisation condition

=1

and the solution is

W1 (5.16)

According to Ramanathan (1997), MA}IP brought three modifications of the original AEP.
First, it uses logarithmic scale instead of the 1-9 scale to handle the verbal comparative
judgments. Second, it uses the LLST instead of the eigenvector method to derive weights
from decision matrix. And third, it uses a geometric mean aggregation rule instead of the

93
arithmetic mean aggregation rule in aggregating the scores of different levels to derive final
composite priorities of alternatives.

5.7 Criticisms of Multicriteria Analysis

The BTE (2004) explored several drawbacks of multicriteria analysis. These drawbacks may
be listed as follows:

1). The terminology varies and it is hard to find an established theoretical framework or
uniform set of principles. Thus, criteria determination relies on the analyst and the analyst
could apply different criteria to the same project.
2). Impacts are not independently considered from the perspective of consumers, and it is
possible to have impacts that are not valued by community.
3). As impacts are sometimes included on the basis of ease of measurement, care is needed to
avoid the inclusion of impacts merely because of the availability of data.
4). Double counting is possible due to the lack of a framework for choosing impacts.
5). Criteria weights derived from subjective judgments could be biased.
6). There is no framework on how to determine the value of future effects so that they can be
summed with effects that refer to the present (e.g. net present value (NPV) of cost benefit
analysis).
7). It cannot be applied at a national level to compare projects of different types (e.g. to
choose between a project to build a road and another to build a hospital) as the impacts of
those two differ greatly.

According to Tsamboulas, Yiotis and Panou (1999), optimising all criteria at the same time is
not possible in MCA methods, so that decision maker has to find a compromise solution.
Thus the MCA problem is mathematically ill structured when different conflicting criteria are
included. It does not have enough representation of the relations of preference and
indifference. A better alternative than another for some criteria is often worse for others. Thus
many pairs of alternatives remain incomparable.

Although the AHP has been found to be the best method for transportation projects
evaluation, its application in transportation project evaluation is relatively scarce, especially
in developing countries. The application of A}TP in developing countries could face a problem

94
in which decision makers would not understand the decision process, leading to a loss of
transparency. The hierarchical structure and the use of the additive compositional rule may
also reduce the degree of accountability of the AHP, especially when there are large decision
elements, as decision makers would be hard pressed to backtrack their judgments.

Some adjustments of AHP to apply in developing countries might be needed, so that it will be
easier for decision makers to follow the decision process. If the method is easy to understand
as well as to apply, it could encourage public involvement in the decision making process,
which might be rare in the case of developing countries.

5.8 Summary

The review of multicnteria analysis and its application for transportation project evaluation in
this chapter can be summarised as follows:

Multicriteria analysis problems are experienced by many organizations. Multicriteria

analysis, also called multiple attribute decision making, is a branch of multiple criteria
decision making which also includes multiple objective decision making.
The use of multicriteria analysis in transport project evaluation is considered since there is
often a conflict of analysis in regard with the impacts of the project. The conflict arises as
the impacts can be viewed from various aspects (i.e. technical, socio-economic,
environmental and political), so that the transport evaluation will be characterised with a
process to find acceptable compromise alternatives.
In spite of those differences, there are actually certain common principles among the
MCA methods. These are: the existence of alternatives, multiple criteria, conflict among
criteria, incommensurable units, decision weights, decision matrix and criterion scores,
aggregation functions, and sensitivity analysis.
There are many multicirteria analysis methods. They can be classified according to
information supplied by the decision maker, the cognitive processing level, type of data,
and number of decision makers involved in the process.
Of all methods, SAW is considered to be suitable for transportation projects evaluation.
Tsamboulas, Yiotis and Panou (1999) showed that AHP has highest rating compared to
other methods for application in transportation projects evaluation. AHIP is similar to
SAW.

95
 The main problems of multicriteria analysis application in transportation project
evaluation are in determining criteria weights. Experience in France showed that it was
time consuming, wasted of public resources and provided little guarantee that the
outcomes are acceptable.
Several methods have been applied to derive decision maker value judgments in
transportation project evaluation, but it seems that AHP is the most widely used method.
Some modification has been done to improve the deficiencies of AHP, but the eigenvalue
method has been found to be the best method.
The application of AHP in developing countries will have a low degree of transparency,
as it could be hard for decision makers to understand the decision process.
The hierarchical structure and the use of the additive compositional rule may also reduce
the degree of accountability of the AHP, as decision makers would find difficulty in
backtracking their judgments.
There is a need for an evaluation method suitable for use in developing countries.

96
 CHAPTER SIX

6 THE FOUR-STEP MODEL

6.1 Introduction

The four-step model (also called the stepwise method) is used in transport studies in both
developed and developing countries. The four-step model is still implemented in the Urban
Transportation Planning System (UTPS) in the USA (Oppenheim 1995).

The four-step model provides a complete framework from study preparation until predicting
traffic volume on links in the network. The techniques used in the four-step model require
relatively few skills. The model is called four-step model as it typically involves four
sequential steps, namely trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, and traffic assignment
(see Figure 6.1). The trip generation model connects socio-economic and demographic
variables with the number of trips, then the trip distribution model distributes the trips from
each origin to the destinations, the mode split model typically divides passenger or freight
travel into specific modes (including walking), and finally the travel demand from origins to
destinations using available modes are assigned to links in the network to derive traffic
volume on the links of the network.

The derived traffic volume from the four-step model can be used to estimate the other impacts
of the introduction of the policies or the development of new facilities. For example, there is
strong relation between traffic and noise pollution. Woolley and Young (1994) stated that
traffic speeds influence air pollution level, noise level, and fuel consumption. In addition,
Woolley and Young (1994) concluded that increasing the magnitude of traffic volume by ten
times could increase the noise level by a factor of two.

In general, the application of the model in replicating the performance of a road transport
system can cover topics including intersection operations, pavement performance, driver
behaviour, emissions, freight operations, road safety and traffic flow patterns (Young, Taylor
& Gipps 1989). Taylor and Ampt (2003) provided broad outcomes of changes of travel
behaviour other than traffic volume that include reduction in air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions, reduction in noise pollution, road safety, and so on.
97
 Trip Generation
4
Trip Distribution

4
Mode Split

4
Assignment

Figure 6.1 The four-step model

Despite the criticisms over the practical and theoretical aspects of the four-step model, the
four-step model is still widely applied. The four-step model is still the fundamental form of
common travel demand analysis in Australia amongst other countries. The four-step model is
the basis of modelling process of most commercially available software package for transport
planning (e.g. EMME/2, TRIPS', TRANSTEP) (AUSTROADS 2000). The sequence of the
four-step model is systematic and assists the user to easily understand the detail of the
transport system under consideration.

In transport project evaluation, alternatives could include policies to reduce transport need or
to encourage the use of more efficient transport (known as travel demand management),
network capacity management, or development of new facilities. The role of a transport
demand model is then to forecast likely changes of travel behaviour caused by the policies,
and likely usage of the new facilities. In more specific terms, a transport demand model is
applied to simulate the performance of transport system before and after introducing the
policies andlor programmes.

The performance of transport system is generally evaluated at an aggregate level where the
demand model represents the behaviour of entire population of interest. Thus, in this case the
four-step model might sufficiently fulfil the needs of planners as well as decision makers. The
four-step model is suitable for strategic planning where there is a medium to long time
planning horizon. Meyer and Miller (1984) provided a schematic diagram that can be used to

'TRIPS has now been renamed as CUBE by its developer Citilabs Inc.
98
adjust the suitability of the model application based on the analysis complexity and the spatial
scale and analysis time frame (Figure 6.1).

time frame

Figure 6.2 - Relation between problem scale and analysis complexity

Source: Adapted from Meyer and Miller (1984)

Figure 6.2 shows that the position of the four-step model (traditional aggregate models) is
located between simplified techniques and disaggregate models. It might tell us that the
application of the four-step model is justified when the studies under consideration do not
need very detailed outcomes (such as the change of behaviour of individual and the time
horizon of planning is between medium to long (i.e. 10 to 20 years)). Such studies are the
typical of transport project evaluation.

Furthermore, the disaggregate models, which have a behavioural basis, are often unsuitable
for most applications in developing countries, as they are largely data intensive (Wirasinghe
& Kumarage 1998). The models also demand from the analyst a high level of statistical and
econometric skill for their use (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

As discussed in chapter three, the four-step model is often applied in transportation project
evaluation in the UK, Japan, France, Germany, and the USA. On the other hand, the method
is often impossible to apply in developing countries because of data unavailability. It is then
worth reviewing the detailed techniques, applications, advantages and disadvantages of the

99
model by which improvements can be proposed. The improvements could lead to a better
theoretical basis and understanding, and practical advantages, especially for developing
countries.

6.2 Preparation of the Four-Step Model Application

6.2.1 Developing Application Framework

Taylor et al. (2004) gave important points regarding the application of transport demand
models including the four-step model. According Taylor et al. (2004), we should distinguish
between models and the planning or decision making process. Models are merely a part of
the planning and decision making process that helps decision makers to gather needed
information in relation with the planned policies or projects (e.g. model outputs). Thus,
models are not of themselves planning or decision making methods.

Before applying the four-step model, a framework is then needed to locate the position of the
model and other necessary steps in the model application by which we can develop the work
sequence of the planning under consideration. The framework should describe the role and the
level of detail of the model as well as the relation of the model with other steps in order to
fulfil the objectives of the whole planning or decision making. The framework for model
development process developed by Young, Taylor and Gipps (1989) and cited in Taylor et al.
(2004) could be used for this objective. The framework provides complete steps necessary to
be done in the model development. The most important thing is that the framework is a closed
system ensuring that model development is an ongoing process, which means experience of
the application of the model; the availability of new data and the need to consider new
situations can be the new inputs to improve and extend the model. The framework consists of
a 13-step process in a closed system (see Figure 6.3 and the detailed explanation of each step
in Table 6.1).

100
 _______________________________________________________

CRITERIA - - OBJECTIVES
2 DEFINmON
1

I I
SYSTEM ANALYSIS _J I
4 -I I
I I
I
I
4 I
'
I
I

SYSTEM
SYNThESIS
5
F
I

I
I
'
PROGRAM I
DEVELOPMENT
I
6
I
AI I

I
I I
I VERI FICATION
I
I 7
I I
I I I I
I I
I I
I i I I
r I I I I
I I I
COLLECTION PARAMETER

[nA ESTIMATION
8


I
I
I
I
I


I
I I I

I
I
' I
VALIDATION I I I
9'.I I
I
5 __________F
I

i i
I I I
I I
I I

REFINEMENT
10 . I

APPLICATION
11 II

Figure 6.3 A framework for model development process

Source: Adapted from Taylor et al. (2004), p. 8

101
 Table 6.1 Summary of the framework for model development process

Step Descriptor Summary description

Steps 1, 2 and 3 provide the backdrop for model usage

I Problem definition
2 Objectives
3 Criteria
4 Systems analysis
5 Systems synthesis
6 Program development
7 Verification
8 Parameter estimation
9 Validation
10 Refinement
II Application
the planning process for policy analysis, and examination of future development
12 Resources
13 Data collection
* Note that the process is a closed system so that whilst it is presented as a sequence of steps, some of the steps
(especially problem definition, resource management and data collection) are in operation continuously.
Realisation of the need for availability and use of the model, including the
information to be generated by it
Definition of the level of detail needed in the model and its outputs. This
includes an assessment of the likely needs and model users and how the model
can help satisfy those needs
Definition of the criteria to be used in assessing the efficiency and/or
effectiveness of the model outputs when applied to a range of different types of
problems
Steps 4, Sand 6 constitute the model building phase
This step is required to identify the essential components and interactions
between components in the system (network, region and land uses) to be
modeled
Synthesis includes the detailed specification of the model, the model
components and the model parameters, along with the definition of the input
database(s) (e.g. network definition and zoning system)
The assembly of the optimal version of the specified model
Steps 7, 8, 9 and 10 constitute the model evaluation phase
Establishment of the correctness of the logical structure of the model
Calibration of the model to best reproduce known or observed (travel) behaviour
in the study region, including the estimation of parameter values for the
implementation of the model to the study area
Testing of the model's ability to replicate the system under study in one or more
observable states (e.g. its ability to reproduce present day conditions). Properly,
this should involve the application of the model to known situations using data
independent of those used in the parameter estimation step
The process of attempting to reduce the complexity of the model without
reducing its analytical power
The process of attempting to reduce the complexity of the model without
reducing its analytical power
Step 11 provides the general operational phase of the model
The process of applying the validated model as a decision support tool to inform
scenarios, plans and issues
Steps 12 and 13 represent the monitoring and control phase
Assessment of the financial, technological, human and information resources
available for the initial and ongoing development and use of the model
The collection, assembly and application of the necessary data to operate the
model, including ongoing appraisal and monitoring of the performance of the
implemented model

Source: Adapted from Taylor et al. (2004), p. 9

6.2.2 Defining Study Area, Zoning and Network System

The objectives of a transport initiative are mostly designated for a specific area of interest,
starting from a small are such as a neighbourhood to a large area such as a nation or even a
group of nations (e.g. European Union). As a starting point, the specific area of interest where
the transport initiative is designated could be used to define the study area. Other
considerations in defining study area include the decision making context, the scheme to be
modelled, and the nature of the trips of interest. As transport movements usually cannot be
102
restricted by a specific boundary, we should define the study area bigger than the specific area
of interest so that we can broaden alternatives of solution such as changes in destination, re-
routing, and so on (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

Once we have the study area, the next step is defining the origin and destination of passenger
and freight as well as the network connecting all origins and destinations within the study
area. Travel can start from and end at anywhere within the study location. If we assume that
travel starts from residential locations and ends at employment locations for passengers and
from industrial locations to market locations for freight, then we will have as many as all
these locations as the origin and destination of travel in the study area. If we have more land
use types, then we will have more origins and destinations. Using this assumption can lead to
a very high number of origins and destinations in the study area. This is theoretically possible,
but it will certainly need very high resources.

In order to reduce the number of origin and destination of travellers, the travellers' locations
are grouped into zones such as city blocks, census tracts, or using an analyst's definition. In
the computer models, zones (including their attributes) are represented by a single point called
the zone centroid. Zone centroids are connected to the transport network using links termed
centroid connectors. The area external to the study area is commonly included and called
external zones. The zonal systems adopted generally affect the performance of the model.
There are no formal methods for designing zones. The most important things for
consideration in defining zones are the number of zones and their size as well as continuity of
land use in a zone, which are related to each other. The smaller the zones size the better is the
model, but also the higher is the number of the zones. Thus, there is a need for compromise
between economy and realism (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994; Oppenheim 1995).

Based on the experience in practical studies, Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994) listed six zoning
criteria in which the fundamental criterion is that zoning system must be compatible with
other administrative divisions. Other criteria (include aggregation error is not too large, zones
should be as homogenous as possible in terms of land use, zone boundaries must be
compatible with cordons and screen lines and with those of previous zoning systems, the
shape of the zones should allow an easy determination of their centroid connectors, and zones
do not have to be equal size) can be applied as long as they do not lead to inconsistencies with
the fundamental criterion. The defined zoning system then becomes the basis of data
collection using methods discussed in chapter two as well as model development.

103
The supply side in transport demand modelling is represented by the transportation network.
In road transport studies, the roads in the network could consist of several road classes.
Incorporating all roads in the study area could increase model performance, but again there is
a need for compromise between economy and reality. In general, the analyst should include in
the network one level below the road class of interest. In computer models, the road network
is represented by nodes system and links joining them in which most nodes are the
representation of junctions. The links are normally unidirectional and characterised by several
attributes such as length, speed, road type, number of lanes and so on (Ortuzar & Willumsen
1994).

6.3 Trip Generation

The modelling objective of the first step of the four-step model is to predict the total number
of trips originating (T1) in, and ending (Ti) in given zone in the study area. There are several
modelling approaches in trip generation modelling include simple growth factor method,
linear regression method and category analysis method.

6.3.1 Growth-Factor Method

This is considered the simplest trip generation modelling technique. In this method we assume
that the trip generated by each zone is a function of the growth of socio-economic variables
affecting travellers.

(6.1)

where T1 is future trips, t, is current trips, and F1 is a growth factor. The variables such as
population, income and car ownership are typically used as the factor. The method is
considered very crude and suitable for predicting future number of external trips only (Ortuzar
& Willumsen 1994).

104
6.3.2 Linear Regression Method

The linear regression technique is generally used to derive relationship between a dependent
variable and one or more independent variables. The application of the linear regression
method in trip generation modelling enables modellers to include socio-economic variables
affecting number of trips and the relation between them.

There are two type of models that can be developed using linear regression method, namely
zonal-based multiple regression and household-based regression. The zonal-based multiple
regression attempts to develop linear functions that relates number of trips produced or
attracted by a zone and the average socio-economic characteristics of households in each
zone. The household-based regression is similar to zonal-based multiple regression, but the
socio-economic characteristics of each household is taken as an input data vector to reduce
intra-zonal variation.

Socio-economic variables considered to affect trip productions include income, car

ownership, household structure, land value, residential density, and accessibility. As for trip
attractions, the variables include roofed space available for industrial, commercial and other
services. The form of a trip generation model using linear regression method may be specified
as Equation 6.2 where the dependent variables is either T, and 1), X,k 's are the socio-
economic variables, and a," 's are parameters whose numerical value is estimated using linear
regression (Oppenheim 1995).

(6.2)

The advantage of linear regression method is that the accuracy of the trip generation model
can be measured using standard statistical procedures such as the R-squared statistic
determination method.

One important requirement of trip generation model is that the total number of trips produced
by all origin zones (T,) must be equal to the total number of trips attracted to them (7))
(Equation 6.3). This is also the requirement of the next-sub model (i.e. trip distribution).

(6.3)

105
The models estimated using linear regression method do not guarantee that Equation 6.3 can
be reached. The equality can be reached by multiplying all destinations (1) by a factor f
(Equation 6.4), where T is the total number of trips produced by all origin zones (T1) as total
is considered as the correct figure for T. Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994) and (McNally
2000a) argue that we should have more confidence in trip production estimates than in trip
attraction estimates.

(6.4)
J

6.3.3 Cross-Classification or Category Analysis Method

This method is used to estimate the number of trips produced per household for a given
purpose using trip production rates. The trip production rates are a function of household
attributes. The method assumes that the behaviour of travellers for certain household
stratifications is stable over time. A large amount of data is needed to estimate the trip
production rates. The trip rates can be estimated by dividing the number of trips in each cell
(total trips produced by certain household stratifications) by the number of households. Each
cell represents certain household stratification (see Table 6.1 for example, where it is based on
m household sizes and n income groups). The categories are selected so that they produce
minimum standard deviations of trip rates (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

Table 6.1 A typical category analysis table

Productions Per Households

Person Per Household Income_Groups
1 2 3 4 5
1 0.543 0.543 0.603 0.603 0.603
2,3,and4 1.057 1.057 1.057 1.114 1.114
5+ 1.438 1.438 1.560 1.560 1.560

Source: Adapted from State of Oregon Department of Transport (1995), p. 28

Another method to estimate trip rates such as shown in Table 6.1 is using linear regression
method. The dependant variables should be trip per worker (i.e. employed resident) for the
Home-Based Work trip purpose(s) and trips per household for all other trip purposes. The
106
independent variables would be either households by car ownership or income level and
household size (State of Oregon Department of Transport 1995).

6.4 Trip Distribution

The next step after trip generation modelling in the four-step model is trip distribution
modelling. The results of trip generation modelling, trips produced by and attracted to each
zone in the study area, need to be broken down to produce the pattern of trip making in the
study area that provide information regarding origin and destination of trips in the study area.
The task of trip distribution modelling is to estimate the pattern of trip making that as closely
as possible replicates the observed pattern of trip making. The trip pattern is typically
presented in matrix form (see Figure 6.4).

Attractions
1 2 3

Productions I Ti i T12 T13 Tij

2 T2t T22 T23 T21

3 T32 T3j

i Tii T12 Tij

Figure 6.4 Typical trip matrix structure

The diagonal cells (where i is equal j) contain intra-zonal trips. The task of trip distribution
modelling is mathematically to find values to fill the trip matrix with respect to T1 and 7).

There are two constraints in trip distribution modelling. The first is the sum of the trips in
each row must equal the total number of trips originating from that zone (see Equation 6.5).

(6.5)

The second is the sum of trips in each colunm should equal the total number of trips attracted
to that zone (see Equation 6.6).
107
 (6.6)

and hence the total number of trips in the study area (I) is equal to total (see Equation 6.7).

(6.7)

When both constraints (Equations 6.5 and 6.6) are fulfilled, then we have a doubly
constrained model. The doubly constrained model could be applied in modelling many trip
purposes where balance between trips produced by and attracted to each zone logically apply
such as the work trip purpose. In the work trip purpose, the numbers of workers and the
amount of employment are logically balance. The conditions where only either the origin
location of trips or destination location of trips is known (such as shopping trips) may require
a singly constrained model. In modelling shopping trips however, the modeller may have
information about the origin location of the traveller, but not have information about the exact
shopping location.

One important input in estimating number of trips between a particular origin zone to a
particular destination zone is trip cost. The trip cost could be considered in terms of distance,
time or money units, but it is preferred to use combination of all the main attributes related to
travel disutility often called generalised cost. The form of generalised cost is usually linear
consisting of in-vehicle travelling time, waiting times, walking time at stops, toll fares and
parking charged and so on (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

6.4.1 Growth-Factor Methods

The trip distribution modelling using growth factor method is simply done by multiplying
basic trip matrix t with the growth rate. The growth rate can be general growth rate for the
whole study area or the growth rate of each origin andlor each destination zone. If we have
general growth rate only, then we can perform uniform growth factor method only. If we have
information of growth rate of either each origin zone or each destination zone, then we can
perform singly constrained growth factor method. If we have information of growth rate of
both each origin zone and destination zone, then we can perform doubly constrained growth
factor method (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).
108
6.4.2 The Gravity Model

One of the most commonly used models in trip distribution modelling is the gravity model.
The idea of using gravity models in human spatial interactions study began long time ago, for
example Carey in 1858, and then Ravenstein in 1885 supported such a model by using
empirical evidence. In 1927 the Boston transportation study used an inverse-square-distance
model to estimate trip interchanges between traffic zones, and in the 1 950s the gravity model
analogy for trip distribution was reformulated (as cited in Taylor & Sharpe 1982).
Furthermore in 1955, Casey used a gravity model to estimate shopping trips (as cited in
Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

The early application of gravity models was simple by direct analogy with Newton's law of
gravitational attraction. In general it assumes that the interaction between two masses is taken
as proportional to the size of the two masses and inversely proportional to some function of
the distance (or travel cost) between them. The Newtonian concept of mass was represented in
terms of population, total household incomes, level of economic activity, and so forth. It was
then assumed that more people would visit and move to larger and closest places than to small
and far ones. Gravity models are able to estimate origin destination matrices without directly
using the observed trip pattern; therefore they are sometimes termed synthetic as opposed to
growth-factor models. The further application of gravity model then considered the use of
total trip ends (origins and destinations) instead of population, and also developing better
model to calculate the impedance between origins and destinations instead of using distance
or travel cost (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

The popular versions of the cost function, representing the deterrence between the origin (i)
and destination (I) is presented in Table 6.2:

109
 Table 6.2 The most common cost function types

Source: Adapted from Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994), p. 159

The initial step in the modem form of the gravity model was the derivation of a technique in
statistical mechanics by Wilson (1967) that constituted a new theoretical base for the gravity
model, and according to Wilson (1970b) and Roy and Lesse (1981) and this derivation is an
application of information theory. This derivation is well known as entropy-maximising
methods (Wilson 1970; Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994). According to Ortuzar and Willumsen
(1994) this approach has a number of followers and detractors and it is generally
acknowledged as one of the important contributions to improved modelling in transport.

The entropy-maximising methods in spatial distribution consider that a system state is made
up of three different levels of resolution, micro-state, meso-state and macro-state. Micro-state
would involve, for example, identifying each individual traveller, its origin, destination,
mode, time of journey and so on. Meso-state gives more aggregate specification; it may just
specify the number of trips between each origin and each destination. Macro-state gives
higher level of aggregation, for example, the total number of trips in particular links, or the
total trips generated and attracted to each zone. The interrelationship between these three
levels is that there are many micro-states, assignments of individuals, which give rise to a
given meso-state, and many meso-states which give rise to the given macro-state. The basis of
the method is to accept that, unless new data are introduced, all micro-states (within the
restriction of the overall macro-constraint) are equally probable. As we are interested in meso-
state (distributions), then the most probable meso-state is that with the greatest number of
micro states associated with it (entropy can be related to uncertainty, thus the most probable
distribution is where we are most uncertain about the microstate of the system, as there are the
largest possible number of such states and we have no grounds for choosing between them)
(Wilson 1970).

Wilson (1974) showed that the number of micro states associated with the meso state
is represented by Equation 6.8.
110
 (6.8)

The values of which maximise this entropy function is identified by maximising a

monotonic function of W, namely log W (as they have the same maximum). From this step it
is then possible to generate models that estimate the most likely meso-state trips (Equation
6.9).

(6.9)

The derivation of the gravity model using the entropy-maximising approach is initiated by
imposing the two constraints defined earlier (Equation 6.5 and 6.6) to the maximisation of
Equation 6.8. To include a deterrence function term, we need to add another constraint below
(Equation 6.10).

(6.10)

where C is the total transport cost spent in the transport system and c11 denotes the cost in
travelling from origin i to destination j. After completing the solution to the maximisation
function, the gravity model then becomes (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994):

(6.11)
=

where A1 and B3 are balancing factors andf(c1) = Taylor, Bonsall and Young (2000)
discussed the method to calibrate the model parameters A1 and for the doubly constrained
gravity model through employing Equations 6.12 and 6.13.

A. = 1 (6.12)

= (6.13)

111
To derive and an iterative procedure is needed since estimation of Equation 6.13 needs
the outcome of Equation 6.12 and vice-versa. After completing the estimation of the
balancing factors, the doubly constrained gravity model can successfully estimate trips
between all origin and destination zone pairs within the study region, dependent on the
estimate of the cost function.

Roy and Lesse (1981) extended the microstate description or the potential choice of certain
entropy models to include not only the choice of zones for location or travel, but also to refine
the choice to specific sites within location zones and specific job or shopping opportunities
within travel destination zones. Roy (1981) applied the approach to urban location models in
which households are distinguished according to the number of commuter per household and
shops are defined according to the ratio of their size to the elemental shop. The application
concluded that a more consistent aggregation of individual behaviour could be achieved by
increasing attempts to more finely replicate the individual choice process in the entropy
formulation.

An example of the gravity model application is that used by the Australian Bureau of
Transport and Communication Economics (BTCE). The BTCE used a variant of the standard
gravity model to estimate demand of passenger travel on 10 pairs of major interregional links
in Australia, where the mass was represented by population and the impedance factor was
represented the ratio of generalised travel costs over weekly earnings, or the number of weeks
of earning required to pay for the trip. The model was claimed to successfully explain about
97 per cent of the variation in total passenger travel demand over the ten corridors (BTCE
1997).

6.4.3 The Multinomial Logit Model

Another alternative for trip distribution modelling is the logit model based on utility
maximisation theory. The logit model assumes that distribution of trip produced by each zone
is the result of traveller decision making regarding destination choice. Bates (2000) stated that
for most purposes it is appropriate to consider that the trip distribution model is a destination
choice model.

The multinomial logit model may be applied to the destination choice problem. The
multinomial logit essentially produce the probability that traveller from a particular origin
112
zone will select a destination zone. Multiplying the probabilities by trip production of each
zone will in turn produce number of trips made between Origin and Destination (OD) pairs.

The form of the multinomial logit for trip distribution modelling is shown in Equation 6.14
where denotes the set of linear function parameters describing the utility for people in zone
i choosing zonej as their destination.

(6.14)

The multinomial logit model was applied for work and shopping destination choice in the
Stockholm Model System. The parameters of the utility function incorporates attributes
relating to the attractiveness of the zone, attributes of the journey and attributes of the
traveller themselves in the modelled decision-making process (Algers et al. 1995). The
application of logit model for trip distribution modelling is also suggested in the State of
Oregon, USA (State of Oregon Department of Transport 1995). Anas (1983) demonstrated
that the gravity formula can be seen as strictly equivalent the logit model of destination
choice.

6.5 Modal Split

The main task of modal split, the third step of the four-step model is to estimate numbers of
trips by each alternative mode used by traveller in the study area. There are two types of
modal split model, namely trip-end models and trip-interchange models. In trip-end models,
modal split model is applied after trip generation, so that only characteristics of the
individuals could be preserved and used to estimate modal split and the characteristics of the
journey and modes were omitted. If we use trip-end models, implementation of policies such
as public transport improvement, parking restriction, etc would not affect modal split. In trip-
interchange models, modal-split is performed after trip distribution, so that it able to include
the characteristics of the journey and service characteristics of the alternative modes,
providing a more realistic modelling approach, and thus could overcome the drawbacks of the
trip-end models.

113
There are several factors considered affecting modal split. In general, the factors could be
summarised based on the system component (Table 6.3).

Table 6.3 - Attributes affect mode choice

FACTOR SYSTEM COMPONENT

Income level Trip Maker
Car ownership Trip Maker
Household structure Trip Maker
Monetary cost (direct, indirect) Mode
Service quality Mode
Travel Time Mode
Trip purpose Journey
Source: adapted from Meyer and Miller (1984)

6.4.1 The Modal Split Curve

The modal split (diversion) curve might be considered the simplest technique in modal split
modelling. This technique included only one or two characteristics of the journey, typically
(in-vehicle) travel time. The S-shaped curve (Figure 6.5) that gives the proportion of trips by
mode 1 (Tj/T2) based on the cost or time difference had been observed to be appropriate to
represent the mode choice behaviour. The problem is that the curve can only be applied to
travellers with a choice available to them. Although it provides a quick response application,
the model is accuracy doubtful (Meyer & Miller 1984; Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

114
 P(T1/T2)

1.0

(C2 - Ci)

Figure 6.5 Modal-split curve

Source: Adapted from Meyer and Miller (1984)

6.4.2 The Joint Gravity Model and Logit Model

The maximisation of Equation 6.8 (entropy maximising methods) can be extended to derive
models of trip distribution and modal split simultaneously. For this purpose, the entropy
maximising problem must be set in terms of, for example, two modes to become:

log W{7} = '?) (6.15)

By imposing constraints similar to that for generating gravity models but specified for a
particular mode, we will have a joint distributionlmodal-split model as Equation 6.16 that has
been used in many studies (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

exp(_
= (6.16)
k

where is the composite cost of travelling from i toj as valued by person type n. There are
several methods to specify the composite cost, the simplest on is by taking the minimum cost
of the alternative modes.

115
6.4.3 The Nested Logit Model

Although the multinomial logit (MNL) model used in the joint distribution/modal-split model
is robust and can be applied in the multimodal situation, it can lead to problems when some of
the options are more similar than others (i.e. they have relatively high correlation). In random
utility theory, the problems are often stated that the MNL is subject to potential violations of
the Independently and Identically Distributed (lID) condition of the unobserved effects, or
random components.

According to Louviere, Hensher and Swait (2000, p. 15), the lID property implies that
"variances associated with the component of a random utility expression describing each
alternative (capturing all of the unobserved influences on choice) are identical, and that the
unobserved effects are not correlated between all pairs of alternatives". It could lead to over
or under predictions of the choice probabilities, if this condition is violated.

One of the alternatives to partially relax the lID assumption is by partitioning the similar
options into nests. The model is then called nested logit (NL) model. The NL model is
essentially a set of hierarchical logit models linked by a set of conditional relationships.
The NL modelling structure is well suited to the modal choice problem in the four-step model.

Figure 6.6 is an example of a conceptual structure for a nested logit model with two nests of
alternatives.

116
 All trips

Composite Mode

Figure 6.6 - A conceptual structure for a nested logit model

Source: Adapted from Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994), p. 193

The MNL and NL models are commonly applied in disaggregate or behavioural models.
These models are based on random utility theory for predicting the probability that a given
individual will choose an alternative within the available choice set. This theory is based on
deterministic decision rules where the utilities are represented by random variables (see
Oppenheim (1995) and Ben-Akiva and Bierlaire (2002) for details). The application of this
theory in travel demand models is claimed to give a behavioural basis to the models as they
are based on an explicit principle of human behaviour. Travel demand is then the result of a
decision-making process by travellers.

There are two basic assumptions in applying the theory. The first is that travellers are
assumed to choose a given alternative (i.e. of making travel, or of a given destination, mode,
or route, or combination thereof) based on a value of preference (utility) that each traveller
attaches to that particular alternative, or combination of alternatives with the highest utility.
Second, while the traveller has a perfect capability to value the preference but the analyst has
incomplete information, uncertainty must be taken into account. To include these two basic
assumptions, the utility function used in this model must include two parts, deterministic
part and random part

117
 = + (6.17)

more specifically can be defined as the utility that individual n associates with alternative i
in the choice set A linear function of the deterministic part of utility is denoted as follows

(6.18)

Where the Xmk represent alternative attributes, which contain socio-economic characteristics
and level-of-service characteristics.

There are two families of models based on the assumption of uncertainty distribution. The
first is called the logit (logistic probability unit) family. This assumes that the error terms are
independent and identically Gumbel distributed. The second is called the probit (more
properly, normit, normal probability unit) family, which assumes that the error terms are
normally distributed, which is supported by central limits theorem from statistical analysis.

Assuming that the error terms are independent and identically Gumbel distributed, with scale
parameter p then the resulting choice model is the MNL. In the NL, the choice set is

partitioned into M nests where it leads to a condition that the utility function of each
alternative must consist of a term specific to the alternative and a term associated with the
nest. Consider that i is an alternative from nest Cmn, then

= + Ejfl + VCm,, + (6.19)

the error terms and are supposed to be independent. The utility of each nest within

the choice set is given by

1
+ln (6.20)
Pm

Then, the probability for individual n to choose alternative i within nest is given by

118
 P(i, = P(Cmn, )P(i, Cmn) (6.21)

The derivation of the MNL and the NL are well explained in many books and articles (see for
example Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985), Oppenheim (1995), Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994),
Ben-Akiva and Bierlaire (2002)).

6.5 Traffic Assignment

The traffic assignment step is where the demand side meets the supply side of the transport
system. In this step, the travel demand from the previous steps is assigned to each link the
transport network (i.e. road network) to derive traffic volume on links in the network. The
transport network present in the model with attributes such as speed, capacities, and length.
The attributes are necessarily utilised to estimate travel times and level of congestion. Traffic
assignment in the four-step model could be considered at macroscopic scale, so that it is
static.

According to Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994), the objectives of traffic assignment can be
classified into main objectives and secondary objectives. The main objectives are: to obtain
good aggregate network measures, e.g. total flows, total revenue; to estimate zone-zone travel
costs (times) for a given level of demand; and to obtain reasonable link flows and identify
heavily congested links. The secondary objectives are: to estimate routes used between each
OD pair; to analyse which OD pairs use a particular link or route; and to obtain turning
movements for the design of future junctions.

There are several traffic assignment methods in which each method has different steps to
follow. Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994, p. 296) noted that there is three basic functions
amongst the steps applied in different methods include:
* To identify a set of routes which might be considered attractive to drivers.
* To assign suitable proportions of the trip matrix to these routes.
* To search for convergence for methods that follows an iterative pattern of successive
approximations to lead to an ideal solution.

The traffic assignment methods are usually classified based on the assumption on driver
behaviour and the treatment of congestion. Driver behaviour can be assumed to have similar

119
or different objectives and perceptions. Assuming drivers have different objectives and
perceptions mean that the traffic assignment step should take into account stochastic element
in route choice. The treatment of congestion is related to whether the effects of congestion are
taken into account in the traffic assignment process (capacity restraint) or not. Based on this
classification, some basic models in traffic assignment can be identified such as in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4 Classification of traffic assignment methods

No stochastic effects Stochastic effects included
effects included User equilibrium Stochastic user equilibrium
No congestion effects All or nothing Stochastic assignment

Source: Adapted from Willumsen (2000)

According to Taylor (1992) the common principles applied to model driver route choice
behaviour in road networks the Wardrop rules (Wardrop, 1952). The first Wardrop rule is that
"Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges itself in a congested network such that all used
routes between an OD pair have equal and minimum costs while all unused routes have
greater or equal costs", and the second Wardrop rule is that "Under social equilibrium
conditions traffic should be arranged in congested networks in such a way that the average (or
total) travel cost is minimised" (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994, pp. 304-305).

The important property when we need to take into account the effects of congestion is that we
must have the speed-flow curve. As journey discomfort is generally measured in travel time
(cost), then we need to transform the speed-flow curve into the travel time-flow curve.
Typical speed-flow relationship and travel time (cost)-flow relationship for a long link are
shown in Figure 6.7 and Figure 6.8 respectively.

120
 Speed (km/h)

Max Flow Flow

(Vehicles/h)

Figure 6.7 Typical speed-flow relationship for a long link

Source: adapted from Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994)

Travel time
(minutesfkm)

Max Flow Flow

(Vehicles/h)

Figure 6.8 Typical speed-cost relationship for a long link

Source: adapted from Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994)

Davidson (1966) developed mathematical expression of Figure 6.8 called Davidson's

congestion function (Equation 6.22) that accounts for the effects of traffic congestion on the
link penalty (usually expressed as travel time):

c=cjl+J q (6.22)
L
C-q

where c denotes the link cost (travel time), c0 represents the free flow link travel rime, J is a
delay or environmental parameter that reflects the road type, q represents the traffic flow
volume and C represents link capacity.
121
Tisato (1991) modified the Davidson function (Equation 6.22) to improve the original
function in calculating travel times for flows that exceed capacity.

X<X0
(6.23)

I xx0 1 (6.24)

I 1x0 (1x0)2J

where x represents the volume capacity ratio or q/C and xo is a user selected proportion.
Taylor (1988) provided a range of 0.85 to 0.95 forx0.

Akcelik (1991) stated that the Davidson function is derived from concepts of queuing theory
so that it has conceptual problems and often calibration problems. Ackelik (1991) then
modified both Davidson and modified Davidson functions by adding several parameters
(Equation 6.25).

1)2 +
c = c0 1 + (x 1) + 111(x (6.25)
4 CcOrf
)

In Equation 6.25, co represents free-flow travel time on the road link, is the ratio of the flow
(analysis) period to free-flow travel time, x is the volume-capacity ratio, C is the link capacity
and JD is a delay parameter.

6.5.1 All or Nothing Assignment

All or nothing (AON) assignment is the simplest approach, but may be regarded as the
'fundamental building block' in traffic assignment process. The AON approach assumes that
trips from any origin zone to any destination zone can simply be loaded onto a single cheapest
route between them. When cost on all links in the network is calculated on the basis of link
speeds, which are fixed before the assignment commences, then we have simple AON
assignment. When we adjust link speeds to the flows on them (using either Davidson, Tisato,
122
or Akcelik models), then we have simple capacity restraint, which is more realistic (Thomas
1991).

The simple capacity restraint is sometimes done using iterative procedure. To be able to do
so, the origin-destination matrix is divided into a number of submatnces, then each sub-
matrix is assigned in turn to the network using the AON method. Link costs are updated after
each assignment and new minimum cost routes computed for use with the next sub-matrix.
Thus, the results of simple capacity restraint are only approximation with no guarantee that it
would satisfy either the Wardrop rules (Taylor 1992).

The AON methods have limitations in that they are unstable, a small change in cost on some
links could completely change route selections, and it is possible that links carry traffic above
their capacity (Thomas 1991). The possible use of the simple AON is in the planning of a new
network, especially to determine the required capacity of each link (Taylor 1992), where
capacity has not been previously fixed.

6.5.2 Stochastic Assignment

The assignment models that explicitly allow non-minimum cost route to be selected are
considered as stochastic assignment models. The stochastic assignment models assume that
there is variability in drivers' perceptions of costs on any given route, so that available routes
between each origin destination pairs are all will be used and the cheapest route between the
available routes will attract more trips (Thomas 1991).

Most stochastic models apply discrete choice-random utility theory such as discussed in
section 6.4.3, especially the MNL model. Variables included in the utility function commonly
are those of transport system variables, such as time and money cost, other variables may be
included are those of trip purpose characteristics and traveller characteristics. If we use
generalised cost, then utility has negative value (Thomas 1991).

There are several forms of stochastic assignment methods; in this section only the Dial (1971)
approach is reviewed. The methods usually differ in the assumption of error distribution, in
the assumption used to defme acceptable route, and in the way of evaluating routes (see
Thomas (1991) for the detail of other methods).

123
The Dial (1971) approach is considered to be the most widely used stochastic approach in
order to improve the AON. It uses MNL principle (Equation 6.26) to calculate proportions of
the trips using each route available between origin destination pairs.

T.If exp(OC..)
liT
yr

Where T,jr represent number of trips from i to j using alternative routes r, 0 is route diversion
factor used to control trips distribution between acceptable routes of different perceived cost,
and Cyr denotes cost of making travel form i toj using alternative routes r. The value of 0 may
be assumed, or estimated for a given network. Taylor (1979, 1981, 1988) discussed
alternative methods to determine 0.

The main principle in the Dial's approach is that there should be a non-zero probability of use
of all 'efficient' routes. The efficient route may have two definitions (Thomas 1991, p. 181):
(1) a route in which every link has its initial node closer than its final node to the origin and
has its final node closer than its initial node to the destination; and
(2) a route in which every link has its initial node closer than its final node to the origin.

6.5.3 Equilibrium Assignment

The main requirement to produce equilibrium traffic assignment is by satisfying one of the
Wardrop rules. Based on the Wardrop's first rule, when equilibrium is reached, the costs on
all routes between any given origin and destination are equal and not greater than the cost
experienced by a single vehicle on unused route between them. The equilibrium occurs as
individual drivers seek to optimise their own travel time, regardless of the behaviour of all
other drivers.

The Wardrop's first rules can be translated into a mathematical programming problem. To
satisfy Wardrop's first rule then the network flow pattern (for a fixed travel demand) is the
solution of Equation 6.27 (e.g. Taylor 1992; Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

124
 q (e)

Jte(X)dX} (6.27)
=

subject to the continuity of flow constraints

X V i, j (6.28)

Ve (6.29)
'Jr

q(e)O Ve (6.30)

and

Xr,j O V r, i, j (6.31)

where e,jr = 1 if and only if e is in path r from i to j or e,Jr = 0 if otherwise, te(q) is the travel
time (cost) on link e corresponding to a link volume q, q(e) is the volume on link e and is
the number of trips using path r between i andj.

Based on Wardrop's second rule, when social equilibrium is reached, the total travel cost in
the network is the minimum possible. The equilibrium occurs as drivers seek to give
maximum benefit to the community by cooperating each other in their route choice (it is then
called social equilibrium). To satisfy Wardrop's second rule then the network flow pattern
(for a fixed travel demand) is the solution of Equation 6.32 and constraints defined by
Equation 6.28-6.3 1 (Taylor 1992):

z= (6.32)

Wardrop's first principle seems more realistic to modelling travellers' behaviour and in
practice it is considered as the basis for the equilibrium traffic assignment algorithm. Taylor
(1992) noted that the assigned flow pattern under the Wardrop's second rule is unstable,
individual drivers could change routes as they find cheaper alternative routes. The Wardrop's

125
second rule may be generalised to optimise some economic objective such as minimisation of
fuel consumptions, minimisations of environmental traffic impacts, etc (Jewell 1967).

The assumptions that all drivers have perfect knowledge of the travel conditions on all links
and all drivers have similar perceptions regarding travel time and delay are considered to be
unrealistic. Thus, it is needed to include the stochastic influence in the equilibrium models.
For this reason, Taylor (1992) used a stochastic equilibrium assignment model in the
TrafikPlan (Sofiware package for the analysis and planning of local area traffic system).

6.6 Criticisms of the Four-Step Model

Although the four-step model is still applied in many countries up to now, it is always a
subject of criticism. From many criticisms, it may be summarised as follows:

The four-step model is considered as not the best suited model to tackle the new transport
planning challenges in which the target of the transport policies are more specified such as
a particular group or trip type (Austroads 2000).
The four-step model is unsuitable in estimating the impacts of travel demand management
measures, as the four-step model treats each trip as an independent entity for analysis. In
reality, trips made by individual are linked to each other and trip decisions are inter-
related (Austroads 2000).
The four-step model does not include time dimension which means driver behaviour
changes caused by congestion are not realistically reflected (Austroads 2000).
Individually, each step in the four-step model may be given a behavioural interpretation.
The gravity model, modal split model, and stochastic route choice models are strictly
equivalent to each other (Oppenheim 1995).
The four-step model, especially the trip generation model, is considered inelastic in which
changes to the network are assumed to have no effects on trip productions and attractions
(Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994). The elastic feature of trip generation model is important
inroad project evaluation to account the effects of improved network on travel demand.

In addressing the criticisms of the four-step model, Bates (2000, p. 17) argued:

126
 some of the criticism directed at the model relates to its 'sequential' property,
primarily because in the earliest applications, the four stages were applied in the fixed
order just given. However once this assumption is loosened, and the possibility of
feedback is allowed (in line with the supply-demand equilibrium), this criticism
substantially falls away.

Furthermore, in relation to criticisms on the accuracy and detail provided by the four-step
model, Bates (2000, p. 17) replied:

the earliest versions of the model were applied at an extremely aggregate level,
without taking account of variations in the purpose, person type, etc" and adds "in
fact, the majority of the criticisms relate to the way the concept has been applied in
practice, rather than to its underlying principles.

6.7 Improvements of The Four-Step Model

Modellers are mainly concerned with the criticism related to sequential approach used in the
four-step model. Some modellers have developed a model that combines all or some steps in
the four-step model into one step.

Quandt and Baumol (1966) developed a model commonly called the direct demand model.
Their model, specifically termed as abstract mode demand model, is one of the most
influential studies in direct demand models context. The development of direct demand
models was claimed to avoid some of the weakness of conventional four-step model. The
direct demand models simultaneously calibrate trip generation, distribution and mode choice,
including attributes of competing modes and a wide range of level of service and activity
variables. Direct demand models have a close relation with general econometric models of
demand. The two types of direct demand models are, purely direct, which use a single
estimated equation to relate travel demand directly to mode, journey and person, and a quasi-
direct approach, which employs a form of separability between mode split and total (O-D)
travel demand (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

Evans (1976) stated that a problem in applying gravity models is that in general the costs
(deterrence frmnctions) assumed in the models at the trip distribution stage are not the same as
the link costs, which correspond to the final estimated traffic flows from the traffic
127
assignment model. For this reason, Evans (1976) combined trip distribution (gravity models)
and trip assignment (equilibrium) into one stage and describing them by one model. Evans
(1976) formulated his combined model as a constrained optimisation problem. Florian et al
(1975) also developed a model that combine trip distribution and assignment, but with
different solution algorithm. Florian and Nguyen (1978) extended the combined model to
include modal split.

Safwat and Magnanti (1988) developed a simultaneous model of trip generation, trip
distribution, modal split and traffic assignment. Their model called STEM (the Simultaneous
Transportation Equilibrium Model) was claimed to give behavioural features to the equivalent
optimisation approach. This model is elastic as trip generation can depend upon system's
performance reflected by accessibility measures that is based on the random utility theory.
Trip distribution is also done using logit model based on the random utility theory. The modal
split and traffic assignment are combined using method adapted from Evans (1976) and
Florian and Nguyen (1978). Hasan and Safwat (2000) compared the STEM and the four-step
model, and found that STEM improves the four-step model estimate by 25 percent. However,
according to Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994) the accessibility measures incorporated in trip
generation equations are often non-significant or give the wrong sign, especially in the case of
aggregate modelling applications.

Despite offering a stronger theoretical background than the traditional four-step model, the
combined approach seems to have small attention in the real-world transportation system.
Boyce (2002) noted that there was only small research effort addressing integrated models of
travel demand and route choice. Hasan and Safwat (2000) also mentioned that there are only
few applications of STEM.

The lack of interest for applying the combined models such as STEM might be due to the
complexity of the model compared to the traditional four-step model. The application of these
models in developing countries will be even harder. To describe the model complexity, the
statement of Boyce (2000, p. 177) may help:

Despite the recent advance in the formulation and solution of these models, much
remain to be accomplished. The training required to contribute to this field is
substantially more advanced than the training presently received by many
practitioners.

128
6.8 Summary

The review of the theoretical and practical aspects of the four-step model can be summarised
as follows:

The four-step model provides a complete framework from study preparation until
predicting traffic volume on links in the network. The techniques used in the four-step
model require relatively few skills.
The model is called four-step model as it typically involves four sequential steps, namely
trip generation, trip distribution, mode split, and traffic assignment.
Despite the criticisms over the practical and theoretical aspects of the four-step model, the
four-step model is still widely applied.
The use of the four-step model in transport project evaluation is justified as the studies do
not usually need very detailed outcomes such as the change of behaviour of individual and
the time horizon of planning is between medium to long (i.e. 10 to 20 years).
The criticisms over the four-step model are mainly regarding the sequential approach used
in the model and inelasticity of the trip generation model.
An elastic feature for a trip generation model is important in road project evaluation to
account the effects of improved network on travel demand.
Improvements of the four-stage model generally attempt to combine all or some step into
a simultaneous model where feedback from lower step to the higher step is possible.
The combined models are mathematically more complex than the traditional four-step
model. The applications of the combined models in developing countries will be much
harder.

129
 CHAPTER SEVEN

7 UNCONVENTIONAL TRANSPORT DEMAND

MODELS AND OTHER APPROACHES IN
TRANSPORT DEMAND MODELS

7.1 Introduction

Transport demand models play a significant role in transport project evaluation. The need for
transport demand models is recognised in both developed and developing countries. In
developing countries, transport demand modelling often encounters a significant problem
namely lack of suitable data. Data collection for transport demand modelling is often
considered too costly in both developed and developing countries (Trujillo, Quinet & Estache
2002). In developed countries, the need to reduce cost of data collection and modelling
process is also recognised. Quick response models that can be calibrated using readily
available data are needed in the application of continuous transport planning. For these
reasons, the so-called 'unconventional' transport demand models are developed.

The development of unconventional models is also intended to reduce the complexity of

conventional model such as the four-step model. The less complex the model the easier it is
for the public and decision maker to understand the modelling process. It could increase the
confidence of the public and decision maker in using the model, and in turn increase the
usability of the models. According to Trujillo, Quinet and Estache (2002), many government
agencies and regulators are not willing to apply good demand modelling as they have less
confidence that well developed theory and models can do better than their own practice. Many
decision makers often apply mental models to make decisions (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

There are many models that could be considered as belonging to the class of unconventional
transport demand models if we classify models based on the source of the data only. The
following are the unconventional models that can be applied to estimate traffic volume: traffic
count based models, sketch planning models and elasticity based models.

130
The traffic count based models consist of two basic approaches: structured and unstructured
approaches. In the structured approach, the modeller assumes that the travel demand model
follows a particular structure such as the gravity model. The unstructured methods are based
on a principle that the quantity of additional information required to estimate a matrix is
minimised by utilising general principles like maximum likelihood or entropy maximisation
(Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994). Most models in the unstructured traffic count based model need
a 'target' origin destination (OD) matrix (e.g. an old OD matrix).

The sketch planning method is applied by using parameters and relationships estimated in
another region or country, noting that some studies have concluded that in general the
parameters and relationship are not transferable (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994). The elasticity-
based models completely ignore the effects of space (i.e. distance) and use time series data of
both traffic volumes and their conesponding variables.

There is also a range of models that can be used for short time traffic forecasting only, for
example traffic volume by time of day, by day of week, or by day of month. These models
use time series traffic data only. The models that could be included in this group are Box-
Jenkins method, Neural Network method, nonparametric regression and Gaussian maximum
likelihood method (Tang, Lam & Pan 2003). Short-term traffic forecasting models have been
described as essential for the application of intelligent transport system (ITS) (Smith &
Demetsky 1997).

This chapter reviews the traffic count based models and elasticity-based models. The traffic
count based models and the elasticity-based models have been found applicable for long-term
traffic forecasting needed in road project evaluation. This chapter also reviews some other
approaches applied in transport demand modelling.

7.2 The Traffic Count Based Model: Structured Approach

The structured approach was first developed by Low in 1972. Low (1972) applied the model
to forecast traffic in West Virginia. The inputs of his model were base year population and
total employment for production and attraction respectively, the base year traffic assignment
network, a base year traffic volume and a trip table of base year external trips. Some
researchers such as Hoim et al. (1976) then followed. Hoim et al. (1976) applied the approach
for planning the inter-urban network in Denmark. They used some features of equilibrium
131
assignment by iterative loading, but their model is considered only a heuristic method and the
results are generally not unique (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

The basic idea of the traffic count based models is that the flow in a particular link is the
summation of the contributions of all trips between zones to that link. Thus identifying the
paths followed by the trips from each origin to each destination is the most important stage for
estimation of a transport demand model from traffic counts. If is the number of trips from i
toj, is the proportion of trips from zone ito zonej travelling through link a, and Va is the
traffic flow on link a, then

(7.1)
U

The could be obtained using various trip assignment techniques ranging from simple all-
or-nothing to more complicated techniques such as equilibrium assignment. The all-or-
nothing assignment implies that is equal to 1 if the trips use link a, and zero otherwise.

For the structured method, if one assumes that the travel demand in a particular area follows a
simple gravity model of trip distribution such as Equation 7.2.

aPP.
2
(7.2)

then Va could be defined as

where P, and are population of zone i and j respectively, and denotes the
distance/impedance between i and j. Assuming that the data are all available, then the only
parameter that needs to be estimated is the coefficient a. Transforming Equation 7.2 to be
more general to include other trips generation/attraction factors will give us:

132
 O.D.
= 2
(7.4)

and extending the general gravity model in Equation 7.4 to allow several journey purposes k
will give us:

Va = (7.5)
kjj k U

The are the only parameters for calibration. The can be estimated using linear least
squares techniques where denotes the observed traffic flows.

V (7.6)
k U

Other researchers who have used the structured approach using linear least square techniques
include Gaudry and Lamarre (1979) and Khisty and Alzahrani (as cited in Khisty & Rahi
1990).

Khisty and Alzahrani (as cited in Khisty & Rahi 1990) modified the gravity models by using
trip interchange index 4. The trip interchange index is intended to eliminate the errors by
replacing the zonal production and attraction characteristics with direct estimates of trip
productions and attractions, and including origin zone accessibility in the denominator of the
probability factor (Khisty & Rahi 1990).

= ER1 (7.7)

where ER, is number of worker residing in zone i, is number of jobs available at zonej,
denotes travel time between i andj. Khisty and Rahi (1990) compared the Low model,
Neumann et a!. model, and Khisty and Alzahrani model using multicriteria analysis and found
that the Khisty and Alzahrani model produced the highest score. Khisty and Rahi (1990) also
applied those three models, and concluded that Khisty and Alzahrani model gave the best
performance.

133
The main deficiency of Equation 7.4 is that if we doubled each and then the number of
trips between these zones would quadruple whereas it should be double as well. The Khisty
and Rahi (1990) model, especially Equation 7.7 could be applied to improve the deficiency.
Another remedy to this problem is by using a more conventional model such as:

7 (7.8)

1 k 1
A1 and
= =

where ak is a scaling parameter that can be used for different units of Tij, 0,", and A,"

and are balancing factors, and denotes a deterrence function. The estimation process

becomes more complex as parameters need to be estimated are now ak, and

Robillard (1975) and Hogberg (1976) calibrated Equation 7.8 using non-linear least square
teclmiques. Tamin and Willumsen (1989) derived Equation 7.8 using a combination of the
gravity model and the intervening opportunities. Tamin and Willumsen (1989) then called the
result the Gravity-Opportunity model (GO).

The application of the structured approach may suffer from several drawbacks. First, it
requires external trip data, which are then subtracted from observed traffic volume. Second,
for each trip purpose, only one variable (for each origin zone and destination zone) can be
included in the gravity model. Third, the models generally cannot take into account the effect
of congestion.

The main advantages of these models are that they do not need any prior information on OD
matrix and are less complex compared to the unstructured approach. These models have
potential to be applied in developing countries, especially for road project evaluation as they
can take into account the effects of road network changes on travel patterns in the study area.

134
7.3 The Traffic Count Based Model: Unstructured
Approach

In contrast with the structured approach, the unstructured approach has gained more attention.
The approach has the main interesting feature that it can be used to estimate OD matrix, an
important input of transport demand modelling. It can also account for traffic congestion
effects. Congestion effects can be treated exogenously or endogenously. For the exogenous
treatment, proportional assignment methods including all or nothing method are usually
applied. For the endogenous treatment, equilibrium assignment is usually applied
(Abrahamson 2003).

The main assumption used in the unstructured approach is similar to the structured approach.
If traffic volumes are assumed as the results of assigning an OD matrix to available routes
connecting pairs of zone in transportation network, then we can inverse the assumption to find
an OD matrix, which can reproduce the observed traffic volumes when it is assigned back to
the network. While different methods are used, in general all models in the unstructured
approach use prior information on OD matrix. The prior information is used as target OD
matrix and can be obtained through sample survey or using an old (probably outdated) matrix
(Abrahamson 2003).

Willumsen (1981) derived a model to estimate trip matrices from traffic counts using the
entropy-maximising techniques discussed in chapter 6. In this case, the problem can be
formulated as:

Maximise = Ta) (7.9)

subject to:
and (7.10)

Using Lagrangian methods allow us to have the solution of the problem:

(7.11)

135
where

Xa =exp(2a)

and denotes trip from i to j based on an old or sample matrix and is the Lagrangian
multiplier. The is needed for convenience only and can actually be eliminated (set to 1)
from the derivation of the model. In this case, the entropy-maximising method objective is to
find the most probable trip matrix consistent with the information available (Ortuzar &
Willumsen 1994). Taylor et al. (2000, pp. 117-118) showed an algorithm to solve the
problem.

Nguyen (as cited in Willumsen 1981) exploited Wardrop's user equilibrium principle to
derive OD matrix from traffic counts using mathematical programming. Nguyen showed if
equilibrium condition holds in any given network, then a matrix can be developed by solving
the following optimisation problem:

Minimise F(Va,Tzj) = (7.12)

subject to:

V i, j
Vi,j,r

Vi,j,r

where Ca (x) is the cost-flow relationship for link a, is the observed cost for travelling
from i to j, and is the number of trips between i and j using route r, and is 1 if trips
between i andj use route r, and zero if otherwise.
136
Some researchers apply statistical techniques including Bayesian Inference, Generalised Least
Squares, and Maximum Likelihood approaches. In general, the statistical techniques assume
that traffic volumes and target OD matrix can be generated by some probability distributions.
The entropy-maximising method and the equilibrium method use an old OD matrix as the
target matrix, while the statistical approaches use an OD matrix based on sample survey
(Abrahamson 2003).

The main drawbacks of these models are: (1) related to the use of old or sample matrix as the
target matrix and (2) they are more complex compared to the structured approaches. As
discussed in chapter 3, OD data are often unavailable in developing countries, so that the
unstructured approaches are likely to be hard to apply in developing countries.

7.4 Elasticity-Based Traffic Forecasting Models

The elasticity-based approach is applied to estimate small changes in demand as a result of

(small) change in one or more (usually one) variables. The initial development of the
elasticity-based model is to estimate the effects of changes of transport level of service on
travel demand (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994). For example we have a base year demand of a
mode T0 and its level of service S0, then we can derive the elasticity of demand with respect to
level of service as follows:

E
ST-T (713)
T0SS0

then the change in demand (T-T0) is achieved by multiplying relative change in level of
service ((S-S0)/5) by demand elasticity E5 and the original demand value T0. Of course we
have to determine E5 beforehand.

(7.14)

The elasticity-based model can also be used to forecast traffic volume on a given link (Neveu
1983; Saha & Fricker 1988; Stokes 1995). We can relate the change of traffic and the change
of socio-economic variables considered affect transport demand as follows:

137
 ADT -ADT rx- -X. 1
(7.15)
ADT i=' L -if J
I

where ADTf is the future (design year) average daily traffic, is the present (base year)
average daily traffic, Xff is the future value of variable is the present value of variable
E1 is arch elasticity of average daily traffic of with respect to X), and n is number of
variables.

Equation 7.15 is believed to be better than applying directly a simple linear regression relating
the average daily traffic to the socio-economic variables. This is for several reasons. First, the
range of volumes over which the model would be applied is believed to be much greater than
that available in calibration data set. Second, the inclusion of present ADT in the equation
(similar to pivot point model) would reduce the problem of non-resident travel, and third, the
elasticity portion of the model calculates traffic growth factor directly (Neveu 1983; Saha &
Fricker 1988).

The elasticity value and variables are calculated and selected using a linear regression that
relates ADT with socio-economic variables.

= +> (7.16)

Where is value of dependent variable at the ith observation, is value ofjth independent
variable at ith observation, is constant term, and is regression coefficient for jth
independent variable. The elasticity of ADT with respect to independent variable X) (E') can
be estimated by

= (7.17)

where is overall mean of the jth independent variable, and is overall mean value of
dependent variable. The applications of elasticity-based models for traffic volume estimation
have been mainly on rural roads. These models might be suitable for road projects evaluation
where travel costs have no significant impacts on travel demand.

138
7.5 Other Approaches in Transport Demand Models

In order to improve the performance of transport demand models as well as adapting to

different conditions related to data, problems under consideration and characteristics of the
study area, several approaches, different from transport demand models previously discussed,
are applied in transport demand modelling.

The other approaches of transport models adopt theories from different fields including
marketing and information technology. These include the discrete choice models approach,
neural network approach, and fuzzy logic approach.

7.5.1 Discrete Choice Models

In discrete choice models, travel demand is assumed to be the result of travellers' decision
making. Thus, discrete choice models attempt to estimate the decisions made by travellers.
Travellers' decisions are usually modelled using random utility theory discussed in chapter 6
section 6.4.3. The applications of random utility theory in travel demand modelling have
benefited by the adoption of stated preference theory. Stated preference theory can assist
planners or modellers to evaluate scenarios and predict the changes in the travel environment
due to planned policies. Discrete choice models based on random utility theory (also termed
as disaggregate or behavioural approach) are often regarded as more policy sensitive as they
take into account travellers behaviour regarding travel decision (Louviere, Hensher & Swait
2000).

The discrete choice models based on random utility theory may be unsuitable for developing
countries in many cases, as they are largely data intensive (Wirasinghe & Kumarage 1998).
The models also demand from the analyst a high level of statistical and econometric skills for
their use (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

7.5.2 Neural Network

The initial development of artificial neural networks was in the 1960s. The development
attempted to simulate neural network activity of the brain for computer-based artificial

139
intelligence systems. These networks were very successful at learning or recognizing patterns,
but they proved to be inflexible. The development of artificial intelligence then by and large
discarded the approach. However, their predictive capabilities, which it was one of the needs
of the general field of spatial modelling including transport, made artificial neural networks
remain interesting (Black 1995).

These approaches were inspired by the architecture of the human brain, which largely differs
from common serial computers. The researchers seek to endow artificial neural networks with
abilities of data processing similar to those of a human, who can relatively easily perform a
variety of complex tasks that were highly difficult to solve by computational techniques of
traditional algorithms (Teodorovic & Vukadinovic 1998).

According to Black (1995), there are three major neural network models: backpropagation,
counter-propagation and the bi-directional associative memories systems. Black (1995) used
the backpropagation model to study commodity flows between nine census regions of the
USA. The study performed a comparison between an unconstrained gravity model, a fully
constrained gravity model and a gravity artificial neural network model. Inputs used in the
study were regional flow production, regional flow attraction and the interregional distance
between the origin and destination region. The conclusion of the study was that the gravity
artificial neural network demonstrated 50 per cent less errors than the fully constrained
gravity model.

7.5.3 Fuzzy Logic

People often use qualitative or fuzzy expressions when describing different decisions made at
various stage of a process. For instance, an experienced operator sometimes achieves better
results than classical numerical automatic control systems when managing complex industrial
and traffic systems. The control strategies of the operator could often be formulated in terms
of numerous descriptive rules, which were simple for a manual processing and execution but
complicated when it comes to the use of classical algorithms. This has encouraged engineers
to make an attempt at developing fuzzy systems that would control process (Teodorovic &
Vukadinovic 1998).

Furthermore, Zimmerman (1991) stated that fuzzy logic systems (fuzzy system, fuzzy control
system, fuzzy logic controllers, fuzzy controllers, fuzzy expert systems, fuzzy associative
140
memories) arise from the desire to model human experience, intuition and behaviour in
decision-making

The idea of the use of fuzzy logic system in traffic and transportation engineering came from
conditions that traffic and transport are characterised by uncertainty, subjectivity, imprecision,
and ambiguity. For example when a driver decides not to use a certain route since he/she
knew 'there is considerable congestion on it', he/she do not need traffic flow theory to
describe the congestion using numerical values related to traffic flow parameters. It suggests
that when solving real-life traffic and transportation problems we should not use only
objective knowledge (formulae and equations) or only subjective knowledge (linguistic
information). Further, the existence of linguistic information simply cannot and should not be
ignored. Fuzzy logic is an extremely suitable concept to combine subjective knowledge and
objective knowledge (Teodorovic 1999).

Teodorovic (1999) provided many examples of fuzzy logic system applications in travel
demand forecasting. Fuzzy logic systems were used to determine trip generation, trip
distribution, modal split, route choice and so on. For intercity travel demand forecasting,
fuzzy logic systems were used to estimate the number of air passengers travelling between
major industrial cities and given regions. Teodorovic found that the fuzzy logic approach gave
better estimates than the non-fuzzy methods.

There is also an idea to combine neural network and fuzzy systems in traffic and
transportation modelling (Teodorovic & Vukadinovic 1998). These two systems have
similarity in estimating functions from samples without requiring a mathematical formulation
of the dependence of output on input values and they behave like associative memories. They
learn from examples. The differences are in the way of estimating functions (the type of
samples required, fuzzy systems estimate functions according to fuzzy set samples, neural
systems use numerical samples), the manner of saving and representing the samples and the
manner of associative inference (mapping of input into output data).

The neurofuzzy model could potentially include the advantages of both systems, i.e. that
neural networks with associative memory are easily trained and have known properties of
convergence and stability but their internal representation remains unclear. On the other hand,
the generated rule base within an adaptive fuzzy algorithm could provide a certain amount of
functional transparency through the dependency within each rule. Thus the neurofuzzy model

141
is a coimective model of application of a set fuzzy rule by which fuzzy reasoning is performed
(Teodorovic & Vukadinovic 1998).

The fuzzy logic approaches may have more potential to be applied in developing countries
compared to discrete choice and neural network approaches. It can be applied using data
based on approximation and subjective knowledge. Thus could reduce the data collection
costs.

7.6 Summary

The reviews of unconventional travel demand models and other approaches applied in
transport demand model can be summarised as follows:

Unconventional transport demand models that can be calibrated using readily available
data are needed to reduce cost, provide quick response model for continuous transport
planning and to reduce transport demand model complexity.
Unconventional transport demand models could increase the use of modelling in decision
making as decision maker is more likely to understand the modelling process.
The unconventional models that can be applied to estimate traffic volume include traffic
counts based models, sketch planning method and elasticity based model.
Traffic count based models, especially the structured approaches, have potential to be
applied in road project evaluation in developing countries.
The elasticity-based model may be applied when the effects of road network changes on
travel pattern in the study area are believed to be insignificant.
Other approaches commonly applied in transport demand model are discrete choice
models, neural network and fuzzy logic.
Fuzzy logic approaches have more potential to be applied in developing countries. The
capability of fuzzy logic approaches to handle data based on approximation and subjective
knowledge could reduce data collection costs.

142
 CHAPTER EIGHT

8 DEVELOPMENT OF A MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS

METHOD FOR ROAD PROJECT EVALUATION

8.1 Introduction

Multicriteria analysis is considered to be suitable for road project evaluation in developing

countries. This chapter describes the development of a multicriteria analysis method for road
project evaluation in developing countries.

The first step of the multicriteria analysis development is recognising the planning process of
the institution where the multicriteria analysis will be applied. In this thesis, the multicriteria
analysis is developed to meet the planning process of Indonesia. The second step is
determining criteria considered to be socially and economically suitable for road project
evaluation in Indonesia.

The third step is selecting normalisation methods in order to transform different dimensions
of criteria into a single dimension. The fourth step is developing an objective weights
determination method that can be used to assess criteria weights without subjective judgments
of decision maker.

The fifth step is developing a subjective criteria weights determination method. It comprises
two parts, determination of subjective weights of a single decision makers and determination
of subjective weights of group decision makers. A summary of full process of the
multicriteria analysis method developed in this thesis is presented in the last section of the
chapter.

8.2 The Indonesian Planning Process

A good transport project evaluation method should consider the planning process applied in a
country or region, conditions of decision makers and available resources. Decision making for

143
any public projects such as road development projects takes place at the political level and
usually involves several parties and different levels of government institutions. Each country
has its own political system and government structure which influences the way decisions are
made, or in other words the political system influences the planning process. This condition
requires the developer of transport project evaluation system to be able to recognise the
political system as well as the planning process of each country, especially at what level and
which institution decisions are made. It could be used to distinguish type and level of detail of
information that should be given to different institutions.

The Indonesian planning process is managed through Indonesian Law number 25/2004. Based
on the law, Indonesian central government must establish a national long-term development
planning (LTDP), provincial government must establish provincial LTDP, and district
government must establish district LTDP. The national LTDP must seek approval from
People's Consultative Assembly (IVIPR), the highest legislative body in Indonesia. The
provincial and district LTDPs must seek approval from provincial and district parliaments.
The LTDP is a 20-year development plan. The ideological and broad directions in the LTDP
are translated into medium-term (5 year) development planning (MTDP) at national,
provincial and district levels. Based on the MTDP, ministerial offices and other government
agencies at each level of government can develop their strategic plan for the next 5 years. The
MTDP is then broken down into a government working plan (GWP), a 1-year development
plan, at national, provincial and district levels. The GWP at the national level becomes the
national income and budget plan, at provincial level becomes the province income and budget
plan and at the district level becomes the district income and budget plan. The main principles
of district and provincial development planning must refer to national development planning
(Bappenas 2004).

To integrate the development planning of different sectors and different level of government,
there are discussion forums to be held at each level of government. There are three types of
discussion forum, first is to coordinate the LTDP, second is to coordinate the MTDP, and
third is to coordinate the GWP. The results of discussion forums held at each government
level are brought to the national discussion forum (Bappenas 2004).

Public involvement in decision making is allowed in the discussion forums for composing the
LTDP and the MTDP, but not in the discussion forums for assessing the GWP (Bappenas
2004). In composing the MTDP as well as the GWP, each level of government must consult

144
to and seek for approval from the parliaments at each level. The parliament then monitors the
execution of these plans (Bappenas 2003).

The main characteristic of the current Indonesian planning process, which is considered to be
different with the past Indonesian planning process, is that it is developed transparently and
gives opportunities to a broad membership of community to be involved in the development
of the LTDP and MTDP (Bappenas 2004).

Since the application of decentralisation by which provincial and district governments can
manage their own resources, the provincial and district governments can provide funds for
their projects. The district governments may ask for assistance from the provincial as well as
from the central governments through the provincial governments for some of their projects
funding. The provincial governments may ask for assistance from the central government for
some of their project funding (Bappenas 2003). Based on Munir (2002) and Bappenas (2004),
the process for assessing annual income and budget plan might be summarised as in Figure
8.1

145
 Village Discussion
Forum
District Sectoral
Departments
Central Govt.
Sub-district Govt. Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum

District Govt.
Discussion Forum
Province Govt. Discussion
Forum
jnalDiscussi1j
"iF

Approved by District Approved by Approved by

Parliament Provincial Parliament Indonesian Parliament

L -4

District Income and Province Income

I
National Income
Budget Plan and Budget Plan and Budget Plan

Figure 8.1 The Indonesian annual development planning process

Although the current Indonesian Planning Process is considered to be transparent, the system
of public involvement in the planning process and project evaluation are generally still
undefined. Briffet (as cited in Purnama 2003) stated that public participation in Indonesia is
not regularly utilised.

Based on the Figure 8.1 public participation is possible, but it is considered to occur too far
from where the decisions are made. It is possible that public aspirations are neglected in the
discussion forum where decisions are made as the broad community is not involved in the
final decision making.

Assuming that each sector and local jurisdiction can express their views in relation to their
proposal, then the actors involved in project evaluation in Indonesia would be sectoral

146
departments and agencies within government oniy. In other words, the projects are almost
entirely approved by the national government, or provincial and national government.

Based on Figure 8.1, it could be noted that the planning process in Indonesia is quite complex
involving many actors. In such processes, good coordination between sectoral departments,
agencies and different government levels are needed to achieve good planning outcomes.
Based on the study by Ferrazzi, Bolt and Kirby (1993) at a district level in Indonesia, such
coordination was ineffective.

World Bank (1999) reported that there was a bias in the allocation of funds for road
maintenance in Indonesia where some provinces and districts received more than others,
regardless of need. The bias in larger investments leads to a condition where some provincial
and district government officials exaggerate their needs as the money comes from central
government. Furthermore, World Bank (1999) noted that as a program, road projects in
Indonesia were negatively affected by the institutional weakness leading to a condition where
four out of five projects had only modest institutional impact and uncertain sustainability over
the long term.

One of the main reasons why the conditions reported by World Bank occurred could be
because there was no standard evaluation system that can be used to prioritise project
proposals as well as to assess funds allocation. In the absence of an evaluation system, there
could be only a single alternative in each proposal; the options are only between accepting
and rejecting the alternative. In such a situation, accepting the single alternative would be
more favoured as long as funds are available.

The democratisation process in Indonesia is now progressing rapidly. The power of

parliament members at all levels is higher than in the past and the demand for public
involvement in public decision making process as a consequence is also increasing. The
USAID (2002) noted in regard to the decision making in Indonesia that "the top-down
decision making of the past is being swept away as analysis by civil society organizations on
such issues as the allocation of parliamentary seats, money politics, electoral reform, ethics,
and civilian-military relations is making its way to parliamentary members, ministries, and
political leaders". In such a new environment, there is a clear need for a transparent, flexible
as well as consistent transport project evaluation method in Indonesia.

147
Lubis et al. (2001) asserted that the focus of road development in Indonesia has been only on
the process of construction or physical provision and not on the evaluation of the effects of
road development. The multicriteria analysis developed in this thesis, as suggested in the
HDM-4 (Odoki & Kerali, 2000), is intended to assist decision makers involved in the
discussion forums in assessing road project proposals and to encourage governments to
generate alternatives as much as possible in the road project proposals. It could be used to
explain the rationales behind the decision of accepting a particular alternative. It could also be
used to account for the views of public community in the decision making process.

8.3 Criteria Determination

The Ministry Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia (Lubis et al. 2001) has
developed a road performance indicator to assess benefits and impacts of road project. The
road performance indicator is presented in a table showing the incidence of benefits and
impacts on various groups likely to be affected by the project (see Table 8.1). The form of the
table is commonly applied in the planning balance sheet (PBS) method.

148
 Table 8.1 List of road performance indicators for Indonesia

Groups Assessment Aspect Assessment Parameter Dimension

Interested
Providers Productivity Expenditure Development, Maintenance,
Operational (in Indonesian
CurrencyfRupiah)
Effectiveness Asset Standard of Preservation Pavement-length km, % no. of
Preservation bridge/length
Asset Condition Pavement-length km, %no. of
bridge/length
Road Quality % road length with IRI<6
Program Program Benefit Net Present Value
Effectiveness
Facility Production Production from Facility Production (kg)/year/km,
Effectiveness Provision Rupiahlyearfkm
Institutional Contract Expenses Rupiah
Regulators Asset Road Length Km for each road class
Financial Road Expenditure % govermnent expenditure in the
project
Defence and Security Accessibility to the Military Average distance to the main
Installation network (km)
Structure Ownership program structure % road program managed by local
based on decentralisation government
level
Users Mobility Travel Time Hour (based on average speed)
Risk Level Fatalities Risk Fatalities/million vehicle-km
User Cost Average Vehicle Operating Rupiah/km/passenger,
Cost Rupiah/km/ton
Resources Cost Fuel Consumption Litre/vehicle/year
Non Users Land Value Land Value Rupiah
Environment Pollution Noise pollution (dB), emission rate
(ton/year)
Economic Gross Regional Domestic Rupiah
Product (GRDP)
GRDP Growth Percentage

Source: adapted from Lubis et a!. (2001)

The BTE (2004) noted that the application of the PBS in the Blue Mountains study in New
South Wales involved double counting. Double counting could also occur when using the
indicators listed in Table 8.1. For example the increase of land value should have been taken
into account in the gross regional domestic product (GRDP), the impacts on users should have
been taken into account in the program benefit, moreover the impact of road project on GRDP
is still debatable. Vickerman (2000) noted that it is difficult to identify and measure consistent
contributions of transport to economic growth, and there is a view that transport benefits fully
capture wider economic benefits, unless they are solely and directly attributable to a specific
project.

Another significant drawback of Table 8.1 is that it is unclear how alternatives are assessed
based on the listed indicators. The listed indicators might be used to illustrate the benefits and

149
costs of each alternative, but it gives only little input to decision makers to guide them in
selecting available alternatives.

The initial intention when using multicriteria analysis was to be able to include non market
value impacts such as environmental impacts in the evaluation. Since the multicriteria
analysis has flexibility to include any criteria, then other non market value impacts are often
included. Care is needed in the criteria selection. Failure to do that could introduce serious
risks, which they could involve double counting and could be used to justify infeasible
alternatives.

Table 8.2 shows the proposed criteria and their dimensions that are considered suitable for
Indonesia. The criteria are grouped according to the objectives of road project based on the
government point of views related to strategic planning. The criteria selected and the
hierarchical structure of the multicriteria analysis problem can be applied to evaluate non-
construction alternatives in a multi modal system such as public transport improvement or
travel demand management

The main objective of a road project is generally to improve road transport performance in
terms of mobility and accessibility, so that transport objectives are the first group of criteria.
The travel time, vehicle operating cost and fuel consumption are divided into auto, public
transport and freight so that we can give larger weight to public transport sub-criteria if we
favour non-construction alternatives such as public transport system improvement. Similarly,
if we prioritise freight transport improvement, we can give larger weight to freight transport
sub-criteria.

150
 Table 8.2 Proposed evaluation criteria for Indonesia

Planning Criteria Sub Criteria Dimension

Objectives
1. Transport 1. Travel Time- 1. Auto Minute
Reduction 2. Public Transport Minute
3. Freight Minute
2. Journey Quality 1. Auto Qualitative
2. Public Transport Qualitative
3. Freight Qualitative
3. Vehicle Operating- 1. Auto Indonesian Rupiah
Costs- Reduction 2. Public Transport Indonesian Rupiah
3. Freight Indonesian Rupiah
4. Accessibility- 1. Severance Qualitative
Benefits 2. Pedestrian Qualitative
3. Bicycles Qualitative
5. Accident Risk- 1. Deaths Number of deaths
Reduction 2. Serious Number of serious
3. Slight Number of slight
4. Property Damage Indonesian Rupiah
6. Investment Costs 1. Capital Indonesian Rupiah
2. Maintenance Indonesian Rupiah
3. Operating Indonesian Rupiah
2. Environmental 1. Local air quality Net number of Properties experiencing
air pollution reduction (PM10, NO2)
2. Water Qualitative
3. Biodiversity Qualitative
4. Noise Net number of Properties experiencing
noise reduction (dB)
5. Heritage Qualitative
6. Landscape Qualitative
3. Support 1. Health Qualitative
2. Education Qualitative
3. Tourism Qualitative
4. Industry Qualitative
5. Employment Qualitative
6. Housing Qualitative
7. Defence and- Qualitative
Security
8. Transport Qualitative
4. Financial Qualitative
5. Equity Qualitative

Most of the data for criteria under transport objectives are determined through transport
demand modelling. Journey quality criteria are needed to account the psychological impact of
reducing traffic congestion, the ride quality impact of improving road surface and road
geometry, and the comfort impact of improving public transport. The psychological impact of
traffic congestion does not only depend on travel time reduction, but could also depend on the
magnitude of difference of do nothing travel time and improved travel time. For example, the
psychological impact of reducing travel time from 20 minutes to 10 minutes would be bigger
than a reduction from 120 minutes to 110 minutes. The journey quality can be measured
qualitatively for different modes.

151
Accessibility benefits include severance, pedestrian and bicycles. The severance is the impact
of traffic on community, other than from traffic noise and air pollution. It could be measured
qualitatively using the relief that would be experienced by community due to traffic reduction
in their area. The accessibility benefit for pedestrians and cyclists can be measured
qualitatively using the facilities available for them to reach local services.

To value accident risks, the analyst should have historical data about accidents on the site.
Based on the data, the accident risks could be determined qualitatively, using verbal
judgments such as higher than current accident level, equal to current accident level, etc.
Accident risks are divided into deaths, serious, slight and property damage, so that we can
apply different weight to these sub-criteria where deaths should have the largest weight.

Investment costs are divided into capital, maintenance and operating, so that it is possible to
give weight to each component of cost. For example when we prioritise projects with low
maintenance cost, then we can give largest weight to the maintenance cost sub-criteria.

Environmental impact is also one of main concerns in road projects, so that it must also
become a government objective.

One of the main functions of transport is to support other sectors. If a road project clearly
supports particular sector/s, then we must determine the value of support objective criteria;
otherwise the values must be zero to avoid double counting. Road projects could also support
the transport sector itself, such as improving network connectivity, supporting previous road
projects, increasing the use of a seaport, etc. Some other sub-criteria could be added,
especially when there are other specific developments related to industry such as mining,
agriculture, etc.

Financial objective is included to account for the possibility that the road project can be
implemented in relation to the available fund for capital, maintenance and operating costs. A
project may be feasible in term of capital costs as current available fund is sufficient, but may
be infeasible in term of maintenance or operating costs. This could happen, for example, in a
situation that the fund for road maintenance or operating costs must be used for other projects.

Equity is one of the main principles of any democratic country. In Indonesia, there is an
economic gap between the western part of Indonesia and the eastern part of Indonesia in
152
general, and between Java and other parts of Indonesia in particular. Economic gaps could
also happen between districts in a province, and between sub-districts in a district. In term of
socio-economic criteria, this objective could have been represented by the support objective.
The equity objective is more political in which it relates to the justice principle. It could
happen that people in a less developed area have a feeling that justice is not on their side. If
such feeling is unsolved, it could have significant consequences. So that, it is important to be
included and a project that has potential effects on a less developed area must be given larger
weight, if the government agrees.

In order to tackle the lack of data problem, the expert judgment method, particularly the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as discussed in chapter 5, could be applied to generate
values of qualitative criteria. As discussed in chapter 5, the AHP has been successfully
applied to generate data from expert judgment.

Based on the application of AHP for evaluating road environmental impacts, Klungboonkrong
and Taylor (1999, p. 344) reported that "the AHP can effectively transfer and aggregate
different perspectives of several experts, deal with multiple criteria (both tangible and
intangible), and interestingly, measure the consistency of respondents' judgments".

Having determined the criteria, the next task is to develop the structure of the multicriteria
analysis problem. The following figure is a multicriteria analysis with three alternatives.

153
 Objectives

Criteria

Sub
Criteria

Alternatives

Figure 8.2 Structure of multicriteria analysis for Indonesia

Based on the multicriteria analysis structure above, there are three steps of weighting. First is
determining the weights of sub-criteria, second is determining the weights of criteria, and
third is determining the weights of objectives. The criteria are then aggregated using simple
additive weighting method (Equation 5.3). The weights of benefit criteria are all positive and
the weights of cost criteria are all negative.

8.4 Selecting Normalisation Methods

Normalisation of criteria in multicriteria analysis is needed to obtain comparable scales. Iii

some methods, normalisation is an important and necessary process. Normalisation of criteria
can be done in at least four different ways namely vector normalisation, AUP method, linear
scale transformation, and the ideal point concept (Hwang & Yoon 1981).

154
8.4.1 Vector Normalisation

The main idea of this normalisation procedure is that all columns (criteria) should have the
same unit length of vector. The method to fulfil this requirement is by dividing values, the
rating of alternative with respect to criteria X), with its norm. In a mathematical equation,
this method can be stated as:

= (8.1)

This normalisation procedure does not produce measurement scales of equal length for which
the maximum and minimum values of the normalisation matrix are equal for each criterion.
However, this normalisation procedure does produce dimensionless units for a decision
matrix, which is a main requirement of inter-criteria comparisons. This normalisation
procedure can be found, for example, in the application of ELECTRE and TOPSIS methods
(Hwang & Yoon 1981).

8.4.2 Analytic Hierarchy Process Method

This method is used in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to derive rating of an alternative
with respect to a criterion as well as criteria weights (Saaty 1980; Triantaphyllou et al. 1998).

In this method, the values are divided by the total of each criterion so that the total
normalised value of each criterion is 1. This normalisation procedure can be found in Deng,
Yeh and Willis (2000) and Srdjevic and Cveticanin (2004). Mathematically this procedure is
as follows:

= (8.2)
m

155
8.4.3 Linear Scale Transformation

In this procedure, the normalisation is simply done by dividing the values by the respective
maximum value. Assuming that the larger the values the greater is the preference (benefit
criterion) then the normalised values are (Hwang & Yoon 1981):

=
(8.3)

This procedure has an advantage that values are transformed linearly (proportionally), so
that equal scales between original and transformed criteria are produced. The values will lie

between 0 and 1, equals 1 means that alternative i is the best with respect to criteria j.

For a cost criterion becomes:

=1 (8.4)
max

When we have both benefit criteria and cost criteria in the decision matrix, the cost criteria
should be calculated based on the inverse of values using the following formula:

lix..
= (8.5)
xy

8.4.4 Ideal Point Concept

The ideal point concept measures the closeness of alternative i with respect to criterion j to
ideal point (maximum xv), which is the best performance in criterion j, and to the anti-ideal
point (minimum xv), which is the worst performance in term of criterion j (Diakoulaki,
Mavrotas & Papayannakis 1995). For benefit criteria the normalised values are calculated
using the following formula:

156
 mm
cu= (8.6)
max xu mlfl

and for the cost criteria the normalised values are calculated using the following formula:

' (8.7)

The advantage of the ideal point concept is that the scale of normalised values is equal for
each criterion from 0 to 1. The best performance of each criterion is 1 and the worst
performance is 0. This method has deficiencies that the normalised values could have
different scale compared to original values (Hwang & Yoon 1981). This method is, however,
widely applied in multicriteria analysis application. For example, it can be found in Li (1999),
Ma, Fan and Huang (1999), Yeh, Deng and Chang (2000), and Fan, Ma and Zhang (2002).

8.4.5 Comparing Normalisation Methods

Beside the advantages and disadvantages of available normalisation methods as discussed

above, there is another factor could be used to select the appropriate normalisation method,
namely the contrast intensity. As discussed in chapter 5, contrast intensity can be used to
determine objective weights. Contrast intensity can also influence correlation between values
of a criterion and the total values of criteria, so that it may be considered to be an important
characteristic of data.

Contrast intensity can be quantified using the standard deviation or entropy method. Standard
deviation of a criterion then can be used to measures the weight of that criterion. Note that a
normalisation method should maintain the characteristic of the original data.

In order to demonstrate the selection of normalisation method, the data in Table 8.3 from
Diakoulaki, Mavrotas and Papayaimakis (1995) are used. The data were used to determine
objective weights of a multicriteria analysis problem for evaluating pharmaceutical firms.
There are 3 criteria, profitability, market share and productivity. These data are used as they
give a good example which shows a condition where there are contrasts between different

157
criteria, especially between market share and productivity. In Table 8.3, firm b is the best
based on its productivity but it is the worst based on its market share.

Table 8.3 Comparison of normalisation method

Linear Scale
Original Data Transformation Ideal Point Concept AHP Method Vector Normalisation
Firms Profit. MS Prod. Profit. MS Prod. Profit. MS Prod. Profit. MS Prod. Profit. MS Prod.
a 61 1.08 4.33 1.00 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.21 1.00 0.80 0.14 0.56 0.81 0.05 0.22
b 20.7 0.26 4.34 0.34 0.06 1.00 0.58 0.00 1.00 0.27 0.03 0.57 0.27 0.01 0.22
c 16.3 1.98 2.53 0.27 0.48 0.58 0.53 0.45 0.46 0.21 0.25 0.33 0.22 0.10 0.13

d 9 3.26 1.65 0.15 0.79 0.38 0.46 0.78 0.20 0.12 0.41 0.21 0.12 0.16 0.08
e 5.4 2.77 2.33 0.09 0.67 0.54 0.42 0.65 0.40 0.07 0.35 0.30 0.07 0.14 0.12

f 4.00 4.12 1.21 0.07 1.00 0.28 0.40 1.00 0.07 0.05 0.52 0.16 0.05 0.20 0.06
g -6.10 3.52 2.10 -0.10 0.85 0.48 0.30 0.84 0.33 -0.08 0.44 0.27 -0.08 0.17 0.11

h -34.60 3.31 0.98 -0.57 0.80 0.23 0.00 0.79 0.00 -0.46 0.41 0.13 -0.46 0.16 0.05

SD 25.15 1.24 1.20 0.41 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.32 0.36 0.33 0.15 0.16 0.33 0.061 0.062

In the original data, the profitability criterion has standard deviation much higher than market
share and productivity, and market share has standard deviation higher than productivity.
These conditions are also found in linear scale transformation method, although the standard
deviation of profitability is drastically decreased as its dimension is changed.

In contrast, the ideal point concept gives the highest standard deviation to the productivity
criterion and gives the lowest standard deviation to the profitability criterion.

Although the AHP method gives the profitability criterion the highest standard deviation, the
standard deviation of market share is lower than productivity. These conditions are repeated
in the vector normalisation method. Furthermore, the AMP method possesses another
drawback in which rank abnormality may occur, as discussed in sub-section 5.6.5.

Contrast intensity of the data is one of main important characteristics of data used in
multicriteria analysis, so that this characteristic must be preserved after the normalisation
process. Based on Table 8.3, after normalisation process, only the linear scale transformation
method can give similar rank of contrast intensity (i.e. standard deviation) as the original data.
For this reason and other advantages discussed above, the linear scale transformation method
is applied in the development of objective weights determination method. The linear scale

158
transformation method is also suggested by Belton and Gear (1983) in the Revised Analytical
Hierarchy Process (RAHP).

8.5 Development of Objective Criteria Weights

Determination Method

As discussed in section 8.2, community views in public decision making are seldom taken
into account in decision making in Indonesia. To represent the views of public community in
road project evaluation and assuming that the community views are free from the influence of
decision makers (government or politicians), then the objective weights method may be
applied. Criteria weights obtained using objective methods are free from subjective judgments
of decision makers.

Although the objective criteria weights determination utilises information carried by each
criterion, it also depends on our assumption regarding the relative importance of a given
criterion. If we assume that criterion importance is related to the contrast intensity of
alternatives value with respect to a criterion, then we could use the standard deviation or
entropy method. If we assume that criterion importance is related to both contrast intensity
and conflict between criteria, then we could apply the CRITIC method (Diakoulaki, Mavrotas
& Papayannakis 1995).

8.5.1 The Entropy Method

The concept of entropy is initially applied to measure the amount of information transmitted
by a given information source. Its basic concept is that the more differentiated the score of
alternatives with respect to a criterion, the greater is the amount of information transmitted by
the criterion (Zeleny 1982). Based on the entropy concept, we basically can eliminate a
criterion that has same score for all alternatives, as it does not influence the final ranking.

The following steps form the procedures of objective weights determination using entropy
method (Hwang & Yoon 1981).

1. Normalise the decision matrix using the AHP method (Equation 8.2).
159
2. Calculate the entropy value (e') of each criterion, which measures the amount of decision
information contained in decision matrix and emitted from each criterion.

= (8.8)

Where k=1/ln(m) is a constant introduced to ensure that 0<ej<1.

3. Calculate the degree of divergence (dj) of the information given by normalised criterion j.

(8.9)

4. Calculate the objective weight of each criterion (Wi).

d.
Wi = (8.10)

j=1

To demonstrate how to determine objective weights using entropy, the data from Deng, Yeh
and Willis (2000) are adopted. The data were initially employed in inter-company comparison
in which seven companies were compared. Four criteria, profitability, productivity, market
position and debt ratio were considered.

Table 8.4 Ratings and rankings of performance of companies for entropy

Company Profitability Productivity Market Position Debt Ratio

Cardinal Ordinal Cardinal Ordinal Cardinal Ordinal Cardinal Ordinal

1 0.12 4 49469 1 0.15 2 1.21 4

2 0.08 6 34251 3 0.14 3 1.23 3

3 0.04 7 32739 5 0.09 6 1.12 6

4 0.16 1 44631 2 0.11 5 1.56 1

5 0.09 5 33151 4 0.13 4 1.09 7

6 0.15 2 31408 6 0.07 7 1.39 2

7 0.13 3 30654 7 0.17 1 1.16 5

Source: Deng, Yeh and Willis (2000)

The data is first normalised using the A}IP method to transform the data from to

160
 Profitability (1) Productivity (2) Market Position (3) Debt Ratio (4)

0.156 -0.290 0.193 -0.318 0.174 -0.305 0.138 -0.273

0.104 -0.235 0.134 -0.269 0.163 -0.296 0.140 -0.276

0.052 -0.154 0.128 -0.263 0.105 -0.236 0.128 -0.263

0.208 -0.326 0.174 -0.304 0.128 -0.263 0.178 -0.307

0.117 -0.251 0.129 -0.265 0.151 -0.286 0.124 -0.259

0.195 -0.319 0.123 -0.257 0.081 -0.204 0.159 -0.292

0.169 -0.300 0.120 -0.254 0.198 -0.320 0.132 -0.268

With k=1/ln(7), we have ej=O.964, e2=O.992, e3=O.981, and e4=O.996. The criteria weights are
W1=O.541, W2=O.125, W3=O.277, and W4=O.057.

The main deficiency of the entropy method is that it cannot be applied when there are
negative or zero scores of alternatives, as there are no natural logarithm values for 0 and
negative numbers. The other deficiency might be related to the normalisation method where
the entropy method can only use the AHP method. The use of other methods, such as the ideal
point concept or the linear scale transformation method, will transform the maximum score of
alternative to 1 and the natural logarithm value of 1 is 0. The AHP method changes the scale
of the actual data and changes the contrast intensity of the actual data.

8.5.2 The CRITIC Method

We may also add an assumption that the greater the conflict between criteria the greater is the
importance of these conflicting criteria (Diakoulaki, Mavrotas & Papayannakis 1995). Based
on this assumption, we can eliminate a criterion that has the same scores as another criterion,
as the coefficient of correlation between those criteria is 1, and its presence or its absence
does not change the final ranking. We can also combine the two characteristics of
multicriteria analysis, contrast intensity and conflict between criteria, using CRITIC model. In
the CRITIC model, the standard deviation of data is used to represent contrast intensity
(Diakoulaki, Mavrotas & Papayannakis 1995).

The following is the procedures of objective weights determination using CRITIC method
(Diakoulaki, Mavrotas & Papayannakis 1995).

161
1. Normalise the decision matrix using the ideal point concept method (Equation 8.6).
2. Calculate the standard deviation (si) of normalised criterionj.
3. Calculate correlation coefficient (rJk) between the normalised criterion j and the

normalised criterion k.
4. Calculate the amount of information (Cj) emitted by criterionj.

(8.11)

5. Calculate the objective weight of each criterion (Wi).

C.
(8.12)

j=I

Equation 8.11 gives lower value to two highly correlated criteria. So that the more discordant
the values of the alternatives in criterionj and criterion k, the lower is the value of and the

higher is the conflict between these two criteria.

The data from Diakoulaki, Mavrotas and Papayannakis (1995) may be adapted to show how
to determine objective criteria weights using the CRITIC method. The data were used to
compare the performance of eight pharmaceutical firms. Three criteria were considered,
profitability, market share, and productivity. The entropy method cannot be applied in this
multicriteria analysis problem, as two alternatives have negative scores based on profitability
criteria. The entropy method could be applied when the ideal point concept method is applied
to normalise the criteria, so that these negative scores are eliminated. In the CRITIC method,
the data are first normalised using the ideal point concept method to transform the data from
to

162
 Table 8.5 Ratings and rankings of performance of companies for CRITIC

Firm Profitability (1) Market Share (2) Productivity (3)

Cardinal Normalised Ordinal Cardinal Normalised Ordinal Cardinal Normalised Ordinal
1 61 1.000 1 1.08 0.212 7 4.33 0.997 2

2 20.7 0.578 2 0.26 0.000 8 4.34 1.000 1

3 16.3 0.532 3 1.98 0.446 6 2.53 0.461 3

4 9 0.456 4 3.26 0.777 4 1.65 0.199 6

5 5.4 0.418 5 2.77 0.650 5 2.33 0.402 4

6 4.00 0.404 6 4.12 1.000 1 1.21 0.068 7

7 -6.10 0.298 7 3.52 0.845 2 2.10 0.333 5

8 -34.60 0.000 8 3.31 0.790 3 0.98 0.000 8

Source: Diakoulaki, Mavrotas and Papayarinakis (1995)

The standard deviations of these three normalised criteria are sj=0.263, S2=0.321, and
53=0.358. The correlation coefficients between criteria are presented in the following
correlation matrix.

1 2 3

1 1.000 -0.657 0.812

2 -0.657 1.000 -0.934
3 0.812 -0.934 1.000

The correlation matrix shows that profitability and productivity are highly correlated. By
applying Equation 8.11, we obtain C1=l.846, C2=3.592, and C3=2.123, and by applying
Equation 8.12, the criteria weights are W1=0.202, W2=0.481, W3=0.317.

The main advantage of the CRITIC method, which is developed to capture contrast intensity
of criteria and conflict between criteria, is that it produces a more balanced solution reflecting
the amount of information given by all criteria. The CRITIC method produces the best
compromise between conflicting criteria when compared to the standard deviation and the
mean method (Diakoulaki, Mavrotas & Papayannakis 1995).

A criterion may have the highest weight, but it does not guarantee that the final result reflect
the information carried by the criterion. In contrary, a criterion may have the lowest weight,
163
but it may have the highest amount of information reflected in the final result. For example,
see the criteria weights determined using CRITIC method in Table 8.6, the profitability
criterion has the lowest criteria weight (0.197), but it has the highest correlation coefficient
with the final result (0.679). In contrast, the market position has the highest weight (0.32 1),
but it has the lowest correlation coefficient with the final result. Equal criteria weights could
be considered not objective based on this concept.

It may be stated that the objectives weights are the weights of criteria that produce final result
equally reflecting the amount of information carried by all criteria. We can use Spearman's
rank coefficient of correlation between the criterion and the final result to measure the amount
of information carried by a criterion in the final result (Diakoulaki, Mavrotas & Papayannakis
1995). Thus, the most objective criteria weights are obtained when standard deviation of
correlation coefficients between final result and all criteria is minimum.

The main deficiency of CRITIC might be the use of the ideal point concept method in
normalising the data, which has been shown to be able to change the scale of the original data
and change the main characteristic of criteria namely contrast intensity. It is possible to
modify the CRITIC method by replacing the ideal point concept with the linear scale
transformation method, which is then called modified CRITIC.

8.5.3 The PRODEM Method

The development of PRODEM is based on the situation usually found in subjective weights
determination. In subjective weights determination, each decision maker usually has a
different view regarding the weights of criteria. For example an environmentalist decision
maker may consider that environmental impact is the most important criterion, so that she or
he decides that the highest weight must be given to environmental impact criterion. On the
other hand, an economist decision maker may consider that travel cost is the most important
criterion and gives the highest weight to the travel cost criterion accordingly.

The main reason why the decision makers give the highest weight to their preferred criteria is
simply to influence the final result, so that it reflects their preferred criteria. For example, an
environmentalist decision maker wants that the selected alternative is the one that produce the
lowest environmental impact. If each decision maker has similar view that his/her criterion is
the most important one, then criteria weights are determined through negotiation to reach
164
agreements where each decision maker would present an alternative having the highest score
viewed from his/her criterion.

In subjective weights determination, the scores of alternatives may also influence the
subjective criteria weights determination. So that the objective criteria weights model should
also take into account the magnitude of each criterion in each alternative. The higher the score
the higher is the probability that the criterion would be the most important criterion.

Based on the above illustration, we need to measure the probability that a criterion would be
selected as the most important criteria based on its scores. We could apply the logit model,
particularly the multinomial logit model to measure the probabilities. The multinomial logit
model is utilised in behavioural travel demand modelling such as destination choice, mode
choice and route choice (see Chapter 6).

The objective criteria weights determination method developed in this thesis is based on the
standard deviation of the probabilities that a criterion would be selected as the most important
criterion. This is also utilised the main characteristics of criteria, namely contrast intensity.
The main difference is that it trades off the score of each criterion in every alternative, so that
it also utilises the principle of conflict between criteria. A criterion having similar ranking
with others tends to have low standard deviation. Competing criteria are commonly found in
road project evaluation. For example an alternative for a road project could be the best in
terms of travel speed, but it could be the worst in terms of traffic safety.

The objective weights determination model developed in this thesis is then called PRODEM
(PRObability DEviation Model). The name of the model is picked for the reason that the
criteria weights are reflected by the standard deviation of the probability that a criterion will
be used to select each alternative.

The procedures of the PRODEM are as follow:

1. Normalise the decision matrix using the linear scale transformation method (Equation 8.3)
to transform the data from to
2. Calculate the probability of each criterion in each alternative (pt,) using multinomial logit
model where n is number of criteria. The number of criteria (n) plays as diversion factor
to control the amount of probability given to a criterion in each alternative. The higher the
value of n the higher is the amount of probability given to the highest score of criterion.

165
 Based on Equation 8.13, the probability given to each criterion decreases as the number of
criteria increase. The use of n as diversion factor ensures that the highest score of criterion
will receive a higher probability.

= (8.13)

3. Calculate standard deviation of the probabilities of each criterion (Spj).

4. Calculate the objective weight of each criterion (Wi).

sp.
W. = (8.14)
J

To compare the PRODEM model with other methods, again the data from Deng et al (2000)
in Table 8.4 are used.

The followings are values calculated using Equation 8.3.

Company Profitability (1) Productivity (2) Market Position (3) Debt Ratio (4)
1 0.750 1.000 0.882 0.776
2 0.500 0.692 0.824 0.788

3 0.250 0.662 0.529 0.718

4 1.000 0.902 0.647 1.000

5 0.563 0.670 0.765 0.699

6 0.938 0.635 0.412 0.891

7 0.813 0.620 1.000 0.744

The followings are values calculated using Equation 8.14 and n=4.

166
 Company Profitability (1) Productivity (2) Market Position (3) Debt Ratio (4)
1 0.153 0.417 0.260 0.170
2 0.100 0.216 0.366 0.318
3 0.063 0.330 0.194 0.413
4 0.342 0.232 0.083 0.342
5 0.154 0.236 0.345 0.265
6 0.444 0.132 0.054 0.369
7 0.230 0.107 0.488 0.175
SD 0.127 0.099 0.145 0.087

After applying Equation 8.15, the objective criteria weights determined using PRODEM
method are W1=O.277, W2=O.217, W3=O.317, and W4=O.190.

The criteria are aggregated using the SAW method (Equation 5.3). The following is the
results of the aggregation where 4 different objective weights methods are applied, the
Entropy method, the PRODEM method, the CRITIC method, and the modified CRITIC
method. The modified CRITIC changes the normalisation method of CRITIC method from
the ideal point concept to the linear scale transformation.

The objective weights determined using the CRITIC are W1=O. 197, W2=O.244, W3=O.32 1,
and W4=O.237, and the objective weights determined using the modified CRITIC are
W1=O.296, W2=O.181, W30.382, and W4=O.141 (The computation of these criteria weights is
presented in Appendix D-1).

Company Entropy CRITIC PRODEM Modified CRITIC

1 0.819 3 0.693 2 0.851 2 0.849 1

2 0.630 6 0.408 4 0.699 4 0.699 4

3 0.406 7 0.106 7 0.517 7 0.497 7

4 0.890 1 0.744 1 0.867 1 0.847 2

5 0.640 5 0.307 6 0.676 6 0.678 5

6 0.75 1 4 0.342 5 0.696 5 0.675 6

7 0.836 2 0.505 3 0.817 3 0.840 3

The following Table shows the Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between criterion
and the final results.

167
Table 8.6 Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between criterion and final result

Method Profitability (1) Productivity (2) Market Position (3) Debt Ratio (4) Standard Deviation
Entropy 0.893 0.143 0.321 0.500 0.278

CRITIC 0.679 0.500 0.464 0.643 0.091

PRODEM 0.679 0.500 0.464 0.643 0.091

Mod. CRITIC 0.464 0.607 0.679 0.357 0.125

Table 8.6 shows that objective weights determined using PRODEM method produce similar
result as the CRITIC method. Both of the methods produce the most balanced result where the
standard deviation of correlation coefficients are minimum explaining that the final result
reflects the amount of information given by all criteria almost equally. The modified CRITIC
produces slightly less balanced results and the entropy is the worst viewed from this
perspective. The final result of entropy method largely reflects the profitability criterion.

The equal result between the CRITIC that accounts inter-criteria correlation and the
PRODEM reveals that the PRODEM also accounts the interaction between criteria. The
advantage of PRODEM over the CRITIC might be related to the normalisation method, where
the PRODEM applies the linear scale transformation method. The PRODEM maximise all the
criteria, which produce final results higher than the final results of the CRITIC. The other
benefit is that the PRODEM has flexibility, where it allows analyst to manage the final result
by changing the value of diversion parameter (n).

To compare the PRODEM method and the CRITIC as well as the modified CRITIC methods,
and also to validate the results shown in Table 8.6, the data from Diakoulaki, Mavrotas and
Papayannakis (1995) shown in Table 8.5 are used. The data are useful to show an example of
conflict between criteria in which the correlation coefficients between market share and two
other criteria are all negative.

The normalised criteria are as follows:

168
 Firm Profitability (1) Market Share (2) Productivity (3)
1 1.000 0.262 0.998
2 0.339 0.063 1.000
3 0.267 0.481 0.583
4 0.148 0.791 0.380
5 0.089 0.672 0.537
6 0.066 1.000 0.279
7 -0.100 0.854 0.484
8 -0.567 0.803 0.226

The probabilities (n=3) are:

Firm Profitability (1) Market Share (2) Productivity (3)

1 0.476 0.052 0.472
2 0.115 0.050 0.835
3 0.183 0.346 0.471
4 0.101 0.696 0.203
5 0.094 0.544 0.362
6 0.052 0.85 1 0.098
7 0.041 0.721 0.237
8 0.014 0.838 0.148
SD 0.138 0.307 0.225

After applying Equation 8.15, the objective criteria weights determined using PRODEM
method are W1=O.206, W2=O.458, W3=O.336. After aggregating criteria using the SAW
method the following final results are obtained.

Company CRITIC Modified CRITIC PRODEM

1 0.621 1 0.672 1 0.661 1

2 0.434 7 0.377 7 0.434 7

3 0.468 6 0.439 6 0.471 6

4 0.529 4 0.490 3 0.521 4

5 0.525 5 0.457 5 0.507 5

6 0.584 2 0.533 2 0.565 2

7 0.572 3 0.466 4 0.533 3

8 0.380 8 0.234 8 0.327 8

The following table shows the Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between criterion and
the final results.
169
Table 8.7 Spearman's rank correlation coefficients between criterion and final result

Method Profitability (1) Market Share (2) Productivity (3) Standard Deviation
PRODEM 0.214 0.238 0.048 0.085
Mod. CRITIC 0.286 0.190 0.024 0.108
Orig. CRITIC 0.214 0.238 0.048 0.085

The PRODEM gives similar results to CRITIC when applied to the Diakoulaki, Mavrotas and
Papayannakis (1995) data. The modified CRITIC is slightly worse than the other two
methods. Given the results shown in table 8.6 and Table 8.7, it may be noted that the
PRODEM method can perform better than the entropy and the CRITIC methods.

8.6 Modifying the AHP Judgment Scale for Quantifying

Criteria

As discussed in chapter 2, in order to run evaluation systems, several inputs are needed. Those
inputs are mainly information that will be used to consider available alternatives. The
developer of project evaluation system should consider available resources for evaluation in
each country. An evaluation system that can adapt to available resources would have a better
chance to be applied. It is considered that models to quantify some of the criteria presented in
Table 8.2 are unavailable in developing countries, so that some criteria presented in Table 8.2
are measured using expert judgment (qualitative). The AHP is applied to value those criteria;
AHP has been proven to be valid to value verbal judgments of expert or analyst or decision
maker.

The central tenet of AHP is the pairwise comparison between criteria or alternatives. The
pairwise comparison utilises the judgement scale provided by analyst. The 1-9 scale of Saaty
(1994b) presented in Table 5.3 is commonly applied. Although the applicability and
effectiveness of the 1-9 scale has been theoretically and empirically validated, however there
are some researchers who have questioned its appropriateness and who have also offered
alternatives of the judgment scales (Benyon 2002).

170
The 1-9 scale has potential problems in that it could increase the possibility of inconsistent
comparison as it is a bounded scale and it could fail to fully translate the decision maker's
ordinal perception of the problem (Finan and Hurley 1999; Benyon 2002). Harker and Vargas
(1987, p. 1391) (also cited in Finan and Hurley 1999, pp. 367-368) stated that it is possible to
improve the 1-9 judgment scale:

However it must be pointed out that any ratio scale can be used in this method; the
choice of a scale such as the 1-9 scale is a result of experimental evidence. The
experimentation with various scales of measure is an area in which research must be
directed so that a consensus throughout the research community can be reached
concerning the scale numerical values. Until this research is completed, however, the
1-9 scale has proven to be an acceptable scale and is recommended for use in the
AHP.

Finan and Hurley (1999) raised the inconsistency problem by doing some experiments with
139 respondents. In the experiment, Finan and Hurley (1999) gave the following statements to
the respondents:
1. Object A is little more important than object B, and
2. Object B is little more important than object C.

Based on the 1-9 scale verbal judgments, Finan and Hurley (1999) asked the respondent
regarding the relation between object A and C based on the two statements above. Three
possible relations were given:
1. Object A is more important than object C;
2. Object A is much more important than object C; or
3. Object A is very much more important than object C.

The experiment shown that 96 out of 139 students are confident with relation 1, where object
A is more important than object C. If we translate the 1-9 scale as follows:

Value Meaning
1 Cl and C2 are of equal importance

3 Cl is a little more important than C2

5 Cl is more important than C2

7 Cl is much more important than C2

9 Cl is very much more important than C2

171
We may quantify the verbal judgments above as follows: A is 3 times more important than B,
B is 3 times more important than C, and A is 5 times more important than B. Mathematically,
these quantifications are inconsistent. To be perfectly consistent, A must be 9 times more
important than C or A is veiy much more important than C.

In addressing the inconsistency problems of AHP, Finan and Hurley (1999) calibrated the 1-9
scale using a method called transitive calibration. In the transitive method, the verbal
judgments are translated into undetermined scale as follows:

Value Meaning
1 Cl and C2 are of equal importance

Cl is a little more important than C2

Cl is more important than C2

Cl is much more important than C2

We could represent the transitive question regarding relation between A and B, and between
B and C by (fl3, fl3) and its answer by Based on the experiment it could be translated that

= Suppose we ask another questions of (ifl, fl5) and the decision maker answer is

= 177. So that to be mathematically consistent, the conditions that and '='77 are
required.

Suppose that the decision maker answering the question by saying that object A is s% more
important than object C (A is 1+s more important than C), then we have a system of
773 =I+s, and '75='77. The solution of the system is '13 =1+s, 175 =(1+s)2, and

177 = (1 + s)4, which has geometric progression.

Finan and Hurley (1999) applied their transitive calibration method to the verbal assessment
of Saaty in relation with relative distance between Philadelphia and six other cities. The
followings are the Saaty's scale and the Finan and Hurley's scale:

Saaty's scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Finan and
(1+s)"2 (1+s) (1+s)312 (1+s)4"2 (1+s)512 (1+s)612 (1+s)712 (1+s)812
Hurley's scale
172
Finan and Hurley (1999) stated that with a range of s between 0.2 and 1, their scale is better
than Saaty's scale. The best scale is obtained when s is 0.6.

Benyon (2002) examined Saaty' s 1-9 scale and 1.1-1.9 scale, Ma and Zheng methods, and
Donegan et a! method. The Saaty's 1.1-1.9 scale is applied when elements are close and
nearly indistinguishable. The Ma and Zheng methods (as cited in Benyon 2002) are:

(8.15)

and

=
s (8.16)
(10k)

where Skdenotes Saaty's scale k and k=1, 2 ,9.

The Donegan et al. method (as cited in Benyon 2002) applies a mathematical expression as
follows:

[k
Sk = exP[tanh (8.17)
JJ

Equation 8.17 is partly linear and partly harmonic, it is considered to correct the
unmathematical nature of the Saaty' s 1-9 scale (Benyon 2002).

Benyon (2002) compared the performance of the five judgment scale method using Saaty'
consistency ratio measures (CR). There were 4 different consistency levels applied, 20%,
10%, 8% and 5%. Benyon (2002) used all possible combinations of 9 judgment scales of
each method to quantify three alternatives of comparison matrices, which was equal to 4913
comparison matrices (note: number of comparison matrices are equal to 1 where n
denotes number of alternatives).

Benyon (2002) found that the Saaty's 1.1-1.9 judgment scale has the highest number of
combinations that meet all defined consistency levels, followed by Donegan et al method
173
(Equation 8.17), Ma and Zheng method (Equation 8.16), Ma and Zheng method (Equation,
8.15), and the lowest is the Saaty's 1-9 scale method.

The following table shows the judgment scale values of methods examined by Benyon (2002)
and the Finan and Hurley's (1999) method, with s=0.6.

Table 8.8 Judgment scale of relative importance of different methods

Saaty's 1-9 Saaty's 1.1-1.9 Ma and Zheng Ma and Zheng Donegan et al Fman and
scale scale (Equation 8.15) (Equation 8.16) (Equation 8.17) Hurley' s scale
1 1.1 1 1 1 1

2 1.2 1.222 1.125 1.157 1.265

3 1.3 1.500 1.286 1.339 1.600
4 1.4 1.857 1.500 1.549 2.024
5 1.5 2.333 1.800 1.792 2.560
6 1.6 3.000 2.250 2.074 3.238
7 1.7 4.000 3.000 2.400 4.096
8 1.8 5.667 4.500 2.777 5.181
9 1.9 9 9 3.213 6.554
SD = 2.582 SD = 0.258 SD = 2.462 SD = 2.420 SD = 0.713 SD = 1.787

The result of Benyon's (2002) study might relate to the standard deviation of scales of each
method. For example, the standard deviation of scales of Saaty's 1.1-1.9 scale is 0.258, which
is the lowest one, and the standard deviation of scales of Saaty's 1-9 scale is 2.5 82, which is
the highest one. So that, the Saaty's 1.1-1.9 scale has the best performance and the Saaty's 1-9
scale has the worst performance. The standard deviation of different scales in turn affects the
differences of weight of alternatives. The lowest the standard deviation of scales the lowest is
the standard deviation of weights of alternatives and the highest is the possibility of the
comparison matrix using the scales to meet the consistency ratio (see Table 8.10 for example).

The use of Saaty' s consistency ratio to compare the performance of different judgment scales
could lead to biased conclusions, as the Random Consistency Index (RI) used to measure the
consistency ratio was generated from sample where 1-9 scale was applied.

An alternative method to compare the performance of the judgment scale methods may be
done by comparing of each judgment scale method. The lower the deviation of from
a perfectly consistent comparison matrix where the better is the judgment scales.

174
Suppose there are five alternatives to be compared, and decision maker is consistent with the
order of verbal scale as discussed by Finan and Hurley (1999). The following is the
comparison matrix:

Table 8.9 A consistent verbal judgment matrix with five alternatives

A B C D E
little more much more very much more
A more important
1 important important important
little more much more
B --- more important
1 important important
little more
C --- more important
1 important
little more
D --- --- ---
1 important
B --- --- --- ---
1

The Normalisation of the Geometric Mean of the row (NGM) method is employed to
calculate and (Equation 5.9 and 5.10), and all judgment scales method examined in
Benyon (2002) study plus the Finan and Hurley (1999) method are used (the full steps of
weight of alternatives calculation are presented in Appendix D-2).

Table 8.10 Alternative weights calculated using different judgment scales

Weight of Saaty's Saaty's Ma and Zheng Ma and Zheng Donegan et al Fman and
Alternatives 1-9 scale 1.1-1.9 (Equation 8.15) (Equation 8.16) (Equation 8.17) Hurley's
scale scale
W4 0.510 0.279 0.423 0.392 0.330 0.415
WB 0.264 0.233 0.252 0.240 0.246 0.259
WC 0.130 0.193 0.161 0.171 0.184 0.162
WD 0.064 0.160 0.103 0.122 0.137 0.101
WE 0.033 0.134 0.061 0.075 0.103 0.063
SD 0.174 0.052 0.129 0.110 0.081 0.126
5.243 5.008 5.030 5.131 5.000 5.000

0.243 0.008 0.030 0.131 0 0

In term of the difference between the largest eigenvalue and n (number of alternatives
or criteria), the Donegan et al method and Finan and Hurley's method are better than the
others. Both of the methods produce perfectly consistent comparisons when decision maker
consistently follows the order of verbal judgment in doing pairwise comparisons.

175
The weight calculation results presented in Table 8.9 show a relation between the result of
Benyon (2002) study's and standard deviation of weight of alternatives calculated using each
judgment scale method. Saaty's 1.1-1.9 scale has the lowest standard deviation and Saaty' s 1-
9 scale has the highest standard deviation.

Benyon (2002) also concluded that based on the 4913 combinations of comparison matrices,
Saaty's 1-9 scale has the highest average of weights of the most favoured alternative,
followed by Ma and Zheng (Equation 8.15) method, Ma and Zheng (Equation 8.16) method,
Donegan et al method, and Saaty' s 1.1-1.9 scale. This conclusion is similar to that presented
in Table 8.9 above.

The use of Saaty's 1-9 scale could lead to a condition where a decision maker will give higher
importance to the more favourable alternatives or criteria than to the less favourable ones. It
could affect the accuracy of the weights attached to the alternatives or criteria where the more
favourable alternative will be more accurate than the less favourable ones. Based on Table
8.9, Saaty's 1-9 scale produces the weight of alternative A as more than 50% of the total
weight.

The use of Saaty's 1-9 scale could lead to unbalanced weight of alternatives or criteria when
the decision maker is highly subjective by giving 9 times importance to her/his favoured
alternative compared to others, and 1 time importance to other alternatives comparison.
Theoretically, such a comparison matrix will be perfectly consistent, but the weight of the
most favoured alternative could be more than 60% of the total weight. When there are 3
alternatives, Benyon (2002) found that the highest weight of the most favoured alternative
from all possible combinations is 0.818, and the pairwise comparison was perfectly
consistent.

The multicriteria analysis method for developing countries developed in this thesis uses the
AHP method to value the qualitative criteria only. The valuation of qualitative criteria would
be done by experts. The experts are considered to have ability to understand the AHP method,
so that the AHP is considered to be appropriate. The experts are also considered to be
objective.

On the other hand, the criteria weight determination would be done by decision makers. The
decision makers are politicians and government officers who could come from very different
levels of education and educational background. The AHP could be difficult for some of them

176
to understand, so that it could reduce the degree of transparency of the decision process. A
simpler method for criteria weights determination is then needed.

The advantage of Saaty's 1-9 scale is that it has been validated using real world estimation
problem. The Saaty's 1-9 scale had been proven to be valid and suitable to transform verbal
judgments to quantitative values. For example, Saaty (as cited in Hwang and Yoon 1991)
used his 1-9 scale to value the percentage of Gross National Product (GNP) of each country
over total GNP of 7 countries. The results of valuation gave strong agreements with the
percentage of GNP calculated using actual data.

As discussed above, one of the scaling methods had been tested to be better than Saaty's 1-9
scale when applied to the same problem of alternative valuation was Finan and Hurley's
method ( Finan and Hurley 1999). The test has a very important meaning; the Finan and
Hurley's scale is better than Saaty's 1-9 scale in transforming verbal judgments to
quantitative values.

However, there is a potential problem with Finan and Hurley's method. The problem is
related to the determination of s in real application. Agreement between analysts or experts on
the value of s must be reached before translating verbal judgments to quantitative values. It
could be more time consuming than the Saaty's 1-9 scale.

In this research, modification was made to the Finan and Hurley's method to avoid such
potential problem. In the modified method, the quantitative values of equal importance and
very much more important are determined first. The quantitative value for equal importance is
1 and quantitative value for very much more important is 9. They are similar to Saaty's 1-9
scale, so that it also follows the main principle of the original AHP where the lowest level of
importance is 1 and the highest level of importance is 9.

The problem is then in determining the quantitative values for verbal judgments between 1
and 9 in which the values must be able to produce a consistent comparison matrix when
analyst follow the order of verbal judgment. The problem might be solved using formula 8.18
where k=1,2,...,9.

177
 ((]/8))(k_1)
Sk (8.18)

The scales calculated using formula 8.18 are as follows:

Saaty's scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Mod. Finan and Hurley's scale 1 1.316 1.732 2.280 3 3.948 5.196 6.839 9

The weights of alternatives based on pairwise comparison in Table 8.9 and the scaling method
of Equation 8.18 are then:

Alternative A B C D E SD
Alternative's weight 0.452 0.261 0.151 0.087 0.050 0.145 5

Compared to other methods, the results of verbal judgments quantification using Equation
8.18 are the closest one to the verbal judgment quantification using Saaty's 1-9 scale. Thus
the verbal judgments of Saaty, which are initially developed for 1-9 scale, could be more
appropriate to the modified Finan and Hurley's method than to other methods. The benefit is
that the Equation 8.18, as long as the analyst consistently follows the order of verbal
judgments, produces a perfectly consistent comparison matrix. It could be noted that the
modified Finan and Hurley's scale is valid for use to quantify alternatives with respect to
criteria.

8.7 Development of Subjective Criteria Weights

Determination Method

Transport project evaluation is a process where decision makers, mostly elected politicians,
analyse information provided by professional transport planners regarding advantages and
disadvantages of available alternatives. Decision making for transport project alternatives is
most likely done by decision makers of different backgrounds of knowledge and expertise.

The central part of the decision making process using multicriteria analysis is the criteria
weights determination process. In the criteria weights determination process, decision makers

178
from different institutions with different objective would try to harmonise their objectives
which is then reflected in terms of criteria weights.

In the development of transport project evaluation, it is necessary to identify conditions of

decision makers in relation to factors such as level of education and educational background.
It is considered that most decision makers in developing countries would have difficulty in
understanding the criteria weights determination process using the AHP. For this reason, a
simpler method is developed.

Subjective criteria weight in general could be determined using the direct method (or absolute
measurement) and relative measurement. The direct method or absolute measurement is an
easy one. In the direct method, decision maker is only required to rank the criteria and give
subjective judgment or quantitative values to the criteria based on the defined rank. In direct
method or absolute measurement, the criteria are independent of each other. In relative
measurement (e.g. the AHP), the criteria are dependent of each other. The direct method has
been applied in many multicriteria analysis problems (see for example Hwang & Yoon 1981;
Cheng, Yang & Hwang 1999; Yeh, Deng & Chang 2000; Aldian & Taylor 2003).

Criteria weights determination in this method is considered to be in the midway between

absolute measurement and relative measurement. In this method, a decision maker is first
asked to rank the available criteria and then asked to decide the proportion of each criterion in
each pair of criteria. A consistent subjective judgment is achieved when the order of criteria
weights is the same as the order of criteria rank determined previously.

A decision maker is more likely to be able to rank the criteria, but it could find difficulty in
directly providing specific values for criterion weight, especially when relatively large
numbers of criteria are used. To ease this situation, the decision maker is asked to give direct
weight for criteria in each pair of criteria only. The verbal judgments of Saaty's 1-9 scale
could be then used to determine the direct weight of a criterion, which is a proportion of each
criterion in a pair of criteria (see Table 8.11).

179
 Table 8.11 Proportion of criterion i andj and the definition

Criterion i Criterionj Definition

(%) (%)
50 50 i andj are equally important
60 40 i is moderately more important thanj
70 30 i is strongly more important thanj
80 20 i is very strongly more important thanj
90 10 i is extremely more important thanj
50 + z 50 - z intermediate terms (0<z<50)

This method follows the main principle of the simple additive weighting method. In simple
additive weighting, the weight of a criterionj could be interpreted as a proportion of criterion
j in 1 unit of overall value (final score of an alternative). Thus, = 0.2 means that the
proportion of criterionj in 1 unit of overall value is 20 percent.

For example, we have two criteria i and j, and the scores of alternative k with respect to
criterion i and criterion j are both 1, and w is 0.4 and is 0.6. Using the simple additive
weighting method, we have final score of alternative k = 1 ((1 x 0.4) + (1 x 0.6)). We could
say that in the final score of alternative k, the proportion of criterion I is 0.4 and the proportion
of criterionj is 0.6.

In order to obtain the subjective judgment of decision makers, an example of a question to be

given to decision maker could be: "In order to value alternatives to reduce congestion on
route 19, please rank the importance of the criteria and determine the relations between a
given criterion and a lower rank criterion".

The main element of this method is the proportion of a criterion in each pair, so that we might
call the method the proportion method. The proportion method is easier to interpret as
pairwise comparison is based on common terms used by many people when stating the
proportion of an element composed by several different elements, such as fifty percent, forty
percent, etc. People are more likely to use the term of fifty-fifty (which means fifty percent-
fifty percent) to express their view that two things are equally strong, equally important, or
equally probable rather than other statements such us one-one. The fifty-fifty statement can
also easily be found when someone wants equal share of something such as benefit,

180
investment, etc. The statement such as fifty-fifty, sixty-forty, and so on are very familiar in
everyday life almost everywhere.

In the proportion method, the proportion of all pairs are inserted into a proportion matrix
where and 0< and its diagonal elements are all zero. Equation 5.5 (see chapter
5) then become:

0 a12 ... 0 b12 ...

0 b2fl
A= (8.19)

1 1 ... 0 ... 0

and

j=1
w= (8.20)
(nx((n1)/2))

For example we have criteria as follows: safety, environmental, travel time, and accessibility
in a road project evaluation. The decision maker is then asked to rank the level of importance
of each criterion with respect to the objective/s. If the decision maker ranks the criteria as
follows: 1) environmental, 2) safety, 3) travel time, and 4) accessibility, and the decision
maker gives proportion of each criterion in each pair consistently, then the matrix will be:

Table 8.12 An example of weights determination using the proportional method

Environmental Safety Travel Time Accessibility Total Weight

Environmental 0 0.6 0.7 0.8 2.1 0.35
Safety 0.4 0 0.6 0.7 1.7 0.28
Travel Time 0.3 0.4 0 0.6 1.3 0.22
Accessibility 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.9 0.15

Table 8.12 can be read as follows: for example if only two criteria (say accessibility and
safety) are used in the evaluation and the decision maker gives 70 percent for safety and 30
percent for accessibility, then we must put the proportion of safety in the cell where safety
row meet accessibility colunm and put the proportion of accessibility in the cell where

181
accessibility row meet safety column. Table is 100 percent consistent where the order of
criteria weights is equal to the order of previously defined rank.

8.7.1 Comparison Between the Proportion Method and AHP

If the decision maker wants to use AHP to calculate his/her subjective judgments (using
Equation 5.9 in chapter 5), then the results are as shown in Table 8.13.

Table 8.13 Pairwise comparison matrix

Environmental Safety Travel Time Accessibility Weight

Environmental 1 3 5 7 0.56
Safety 0.33 1 3 5 0.26
Travel Time 0.20 0.33 1 3 0.12
Accesibility 0.14 0.20 0.33 1 0.06

Based on Table 8.12 and Table 8.13, it can be seen that the differences between weights
calculated using the proportion method are much lower than those calculated using AHP. The
results of AHP give more than 50 percent of the total of criteria weights to environmental
-. .
cri'.eria. 1+
LI. 5iiOWS 1-
LIle prupulLivil .-1
piuuu'.es oaiaflCeu ....weignis.
1.. 1 1

For comparison, recalculation of the half of the matrix above diagonal line is done. The
recalculation uses the estimated weights instead of the subjective judgments. The comparison
results are shown in Table 8.14, Figure 8.3, and Figure 8.4.

The estimated results of the proportion method are closer to the subjective judgments (the
total percentage of difference is 0.51). All the estimated comparison values of the proportion
method are lower than the actual comparison values. For example actual comparison value
between environmental criteria and safety criteria is 0.6 and the estimated comparison value is
0.55.

The total percentage of difference of AHP is 1.7. The estimated values of pairwise comparion
show that the A}IP tends to give higher importance to the more favourable alternatives or
criteria than to the less favourable ones. Based on the estimated pairwise comparison,
environmental criteria is 10.25 times more important that accessibility criteria, while the

182
actual pairwise comparison gives environmental criteria 7 times more important that
accessibility criteria.

Table 8.14 Actual and estimated value of the half of matrix

AHP Proportion
Ratio Estimated % of difference Proportion \ctual Estimated % of difference
Env/Saf 3 2.14 0.40 EnvI(env+Saf) 06 0.55 0.09
EnvITT 5 4.79 0.04 Env/(env+TT) 0.7 0.62 0.13
Env/Acc 7 10.25 0.46 Env/(env+Acc) 0.70 0.14
Saf/TT 3 2.24 0.34 Saf/(Saf+TT) 0.6 0.57 0.06
Saf/Acc 5 4.79 0.04 Saf/(Saf+Acc) 0.7 0.65 0.07
TT/Acc 3 2.14 0.40 TT/(TT+Acc) 06 0.59 0.02
Total 1.70 Total 0.51

0.9
0.8
0.7
-
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 8.3 Actual and estimated weights using the proportion method

12

10

actual
6
-- - -

0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 8.4 - Actual and estimated weights using AHP

183
8.7.2 Group Decision Making

In the proportion method, group decision making is also considered. The subjective
judgments are not aggregated directly, the relation of subjective judgments of different
decision makers are taken into account. Coefficient of correlation between subjective weights
of different decision makers involved in the decision making could be used to measure this
relation. The higher the coefficient of correlation of the subjective judgments between two
decision makers the closer is the agreement between these two decision makers. In contrast if
the correlation is negative, it measures the degree of disagreement.

The coefficients of correlation are then used to determine the weight of subjective judgments
of each decision maker in determining the criteria weights in the group decision making. The
weight of each decision maker in the decision process can be determined using Equation 8.22,
where Wd is the weight of decision maker, t is the number of decision makers, and rdl is the
coefficient of correlation between subjective judgment of decision makers d and 1. The
exponential value is used to convert all coefficients of correlation into a positive sign.

Cd (8.21)

and

= Cd
Wd (8.22)

The criteria weights from group decision making (wjg) can be determined using Equation 8.23
where wjd is weight of criteriaj according to decision maker d.

Wjg = (8.23)
d=1

For example considering four decision makers involved in a decision process and four criteria
weights, environmental, safety, travel time and accessibility that must be assessed. The
criteria weights assessed using the proportion method by each decision maker are as follows:

184
 DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4
Environmental 0.35 0.29 0.32 0.18
Safety 0.28 0.25 0.3 0.32
Travel Time 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.24
Accessibility 0.15 0.22 0.15 0.26

We have a matrix of coefficient of correlation as follows:

DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4

DM 1 1.000 0.970 0.970 -0.379
DM2 0.970 1.000 0.882 -0.588
DM 0.970 0.882 1.000 -0.165
DM4 -0.379 -0.588 -0.165 1.000

Then finally we have the weight of each decision maker as follows

DM 1 DM 2 DM 3 DM 4 Total Weight

DM1 0.305
0.000 2.637 2.637 0.684 5.958
DM 2
2.637 0.000 2.416 0.555 5.608 0.287
DM3 0.848 0.302
2.637 2.416 0.000 5.901
DM4
0.684 0.555 0.848 0.000 2.088 0.107

The final weights (the combined weights) of envirOnmental, safety, travel time, and
accessibility are 0.306, 0.282, 0.231, and 0.182 respectively. The correlation coefficient
between the group subjective criteria weights and the subjective criteria weights of each
decision maker, started from decision maker 1 to decision maker 4, are 0.986, 0.916, 0.996,
and 0.227. It can be seen that the group subjective criteria weights do not reflect the
subjective criteria weights of decision maker 4. This is because the subjective weights of
decision maker 4 contradict the subjective weights of the other decision makers. This decision
maker has a high degree of disagreement with other decision makers.

In this method, the decision maker then knows their position amongst other decision makers,
which can reduce conflict between decision makers. Group decision making using the
proportion method would ensure that the process is transparent.

185
Overall this method could be used as a rule in transport project evaluation in developing
countries and could ensure the consistency of the process. On the other hand, decision makers
are given full freedom to decide criteria weights using easy and transparent multicnteria
analysis method, so that the flexibility of the evaluation process to meet the objectives of any
projects can be assured.

8.8 Summary

The steps of multicriteria analysis method for road project in developing countries developed
in this thesis are summarised in Figure 8.5.

186
 Determining
criteria values
using transport
demand modelling
and expert
judgment (using
modified AHP)

Criteria aggregation using

Simple Additive
Weighting Method

Figure 8.5 The structure of multicriteria analysis for road project in developing
countries

Overall the main points of this chapter are:

The system of public involvement in planning process in Indonesia is still undefined.

The criteria are structured in three levels: planning objectives, criteria and sub-criteria.
The values of criteria are determined through transport demand modelling and expert
judgment using AMP method. The Saaty's 1-9 scale can be replaced by the modified
Finan and Hurley's scale to increase the consistency of pairwise comparison.
187
 The linear scale transformation method is used to normalise the criteria. It maintains the
scale of the original data.
The views of the general community are represented by objective criteria weights.
The objective criteria determination method developed in this thesis is called the
PRODEM method. It has the behavioural background of subjective criteria weights
determination method, applies contrast intensity (which is the main principle of
information theory), and also takes into account interaction between different criteria.
The results of the PRODEM method reflect the information carried by each criterion and
maximise all the criteria, which produce final results higher than the final results of
CRITIC. The other benefit is that the PRODEM has flexibility, as it allows an analyst to
manage the final result by changing the value of the diversion parameter (n).
The subjective criteria weights are determined using proportion method, which is simple,
flexible, and transparent.

188
 CHAPTER NINE

9 DEVELOPMENT OF PASSENGER TRANSPORT

DEMAND MODEL

9.1 Introduction

Transport project evaluation in developed countries commonly applies the four-step method.
There are variations between countries in applying the four-step method, but the main
difference is in the treatment of induced demand.

The four-step method has several deficiencies, but the main problems are the sequential
approach used in the model in which it leads to the inelasticity of the first step of the method,
the trip generation model. Trip generation model elasticity is essential in road project
evaluation if the effects of travel costs change on travel demand due to road condition changes
need to be taken into account. In other words, trip generation elasticity is needed to account
for induced demand. The four-step model generally assumes that trip generation is

Another important requirement of travel demand models developed for road project
evaluation is that they should be able to produce flows of different vehicles, as costs and
benefits received by each vehicle type from a road improvement are different and some road
project evaluations require such classified flows.

Modellers have attempted to combine all or some steps into a simultaneous model, so that
outputs of the lower step could be inputs of the higher steps (see for example Boyce, Zhang &
Lupa 1994; Boyce & Zhang 1997; Loudon, Parameswaran & Gardner 1997). When feedback
from the lowest step (i.e. traffic assignment) reach the trip generation model, then the trip
generation model is considered to be elastic.

It is considered that there have been few applications of the combined approaches to date.
This might due to the complexity of the combined approaches compared to the traditional
four-step model.

189
This chapter presents the development of a combined approach, which is considered to be
simple and applicable for developing countries. The main objective of the model development
of this chapter is to improve the trip generation model, so that it can have elastic features.

9.2 STEM Model

As discussed in section 6.7, the first model attempted to combine all step of four-step model
into a single mathematical program is STEM (the Simultaneous Transportation Equilibrium
Model) developed by Safwat and Magnanti (1988). The trip generation model in the STEM is
then considered to be elastic as it takes into account the characteristics of destinations and the
transport system's performance. A brief description of STEM is follows:

(9.1)

Si (9.2)

G.exp(Ou.. +A.)
u
'.'
(93)

Where is number of trip generated from origin i, S, is an accessibility variable that

measures the expected maximum utility of travel on transport system as perceived from origin
i, E1 is composite measure of effect that socio-economic variables (exogenous to transport
system) have on trip generation from origin i, 4j is composite measure of effect that socio-
economic variables (exogenous to transport system) have on trip attraction at destinationj,
is number of trip distributed from i to j, and is average minimum perceived cost of
transportation between i andj.

Mode choice and route choice in the STEM are combined in one step and then become
embedded into an equilibrium assignment framework. This method assumes that each user
chooses the mode and route combination that minimises his or her total perceived cost from
node of origin to node of destination. Mode transfer in the middle of any given trip is possible
within this assumption (Safwat & Magnanti, 1988). The combined mode choice and route
choice basically adopts assumptions used in previous combined models such us those
190
developed by Evans (1976) and Florian and Nguyen (1978). According to Ortuzar and
Willumsen (1994), the solution method of STEM employs the Frank-Wolfe algorithm.

Safwat and Magnanti (1988) did not fully describe how to develop the functions that specify
how socio-economic variables affect trip attraction 4 as well as trip generation E, when
STEM is calibrated using aggregate data. It might be measured using a weighted sum of
employment, shopping area, etc. The problem is then how to determine the weights of the
variables.

Hasan and Safwat (2000) reported that a and U could be estimated using the nave method.
This starts by fixing the value of a at a given level and varying the value of 0; then fix the
value of a at another level and vary the value of 0 and so on. A pair of a and 0 values that
minimise mean predictor error are then selected.

In term of aggregate data, the performance of the logit model, which is actually similar to the
singly constrained gravity model, could be less accurate compared to the doubly constrained
gravity model. The doubly constrained gravity model is more likely to produce a modelled
trip matrix similar to observed data. The doubly constrained gravity model should at least
produce modelled trip productions and trip attractions similar to observed data.

9.3 Extending Evans Combined Distribution and

Assignment Model

In aggregate models, incorporating a measure of accessibility (i.e. ease or difficulty of making

trips to/from each zone) into trip generation equations is done to solve the trip generation
inelasticity problem. The trip generation then becomes:

T, = (9.4)

S, = (9.5)

Where T, is trip produced from origin i, H1 represents socio-economic variables affecting trip
production, is a measure of attraction of zonej, S1 is a measure of accessibility by a person
191
in origin i, is travel cost from origin ito destinationj, and 13 is a calibration parameter from
gravity model.

The problem with Equation 9.4, where accessibility is one of independent variables, is that it
could produce models with unexpected results where the estimated parameters of the
accessibility variable are either non-significant or have the wrong sign (Ortuzar & Willumsen
1994). Furthermore, there is no method to determine the measure of attraction of destination
zone So some assumption must be made, for instance by using weighted sum of
employment, shopping area, etc.

To avoid the possible statistical problem of Equation 9.4, we must be sure that the
accessibility variable has significant positive correlation with trip production. A key
parameter by which we can modify the coefficient of correlation between accessibility
variable and trip production is /3. Thus a modifying procedure to determine /3 could improve
the statistical performance of accessibility variable in the trip generation model.

Under the traditional method, determination of /3 value is based on a condition that the
modelled trip distribution must be as close as possible to the observed trip distribution, in
other words it is distribution specific only. This research suggests that the estimated value of /3
must also consider trip generation, i.e. be trip generation specific. Thus, the value of /3 is
determined under two conditions: that (1) it produces the highest coefficient of correlation
between the accessibility variable and trip production, and (2) it produces modelled trip
distribution as close as possible to observed trip distribution.

To measure the closeness of modelled trip distribution to observed trip distribution, the
difference between mean cost from the modelled trip length distribution (MTLD) and mean
cost from the observed trip length distribution (OTLD) may be used. The accepted value of /3
is the value of /3 that satisfy Equation 9.6, where denotes the mean cost from the OTLD,
Cd denotes the mean cost from the MTLD and denotes coefficient of correlation between
trip production and accessibility variable. For Equation 9.7 and 9.8, denotes the observed
number of trips between a pair of zone and denotes the modelled number of trips between a
pair of zone.

192
 *
C
(9.6)

/ /
(97)

(9.8)
Cd= '
// y
v

The Hyman method (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994, p. 170) may be modified to determine the
value of i3 as follows:

1. Set d = 0; determine ho = solve doubly constrained gravity model; calculate c0;

calculate determine

2. If minimum cF is achieved, stop and accept otherwise go to 3

3. Set d = d + 1; determine /3d solve doubly constrained gravity model;

calculate Cd; calculate determine ; back to 2.

To include mode choice model in the trip generation model, the travel cost between origin and
destination must represent the travel costs of all modes available between the origin
destination pair. Thus travel cost between origin destination pair is replaced by composite
cost The composite cost is calculated using Equation 9.9 where represent the
minimum cost between i andj using mode m. According to Williams (as cited in Ortuzar &
Willumsen 1994), Equation 9.6, which is based on the theory of rational choice behaviour, is
the correct specification of composite cost.

= (9.9)

Equation must satisfy a condition that ,B a.

The accessibility measure of Equation 9.5 then becomes:

193
 Si = (9.10)

To determine the value of a, the nave method could be employed. For starting point, set a
equal to 1. Then perform iterative process to find the value of j3 discussed above. Try another
value of a, then perform another iterative process to find the value of and so on until the
modelled mode split is sufficiently close to the observed mode split.

To measure the attractiveness of destinationj, trip attraction model may be used. It is argued
that the attractiveness of a destination zone is reflected by number of trips going to the
destination. So that the relative level of attractiveness of a destination zone compared to other
destination zones in a study area could be represented by number of trips attracted to the zone
Destination zone attractiveness may then be determined using Equation 9.11, where
represents socio-economic variable k that affect trip attraction.

=f(HJk) k=1,2,...,K (9.11)

Trip attraction of a future condition could be estimated using Equation 9.12. The use of
Equation 9.12 ensures that the total trips attracted to all destination zones is equal to the total
trip produced by all origin zones, a condition essential in a doubly constrained trip
distribution model.

T T

To distribute trips produced by origin zones the doubly constrained gravity model is used.

= (9.13)

Where and are balancing factors similar to Equation 6.12 and 6.13 and discussed in
chapter 6.

The use of doubly constrained gravity model is preferred to the logit model because the
former generally produces modelled trip distributions better than the later in term of aggregate
data. The logit model can be seen as strictly equivalent to the singly constrained gravity
194
model, as the logit model only requires equality of modelled trip production and observed trip
production.

The doubly constrained gravity model must meet a requirement that modelled trip production
as well as trip attraction must be equal to the observed data. It ensures that after completing
the estimation of the balancing factors, the doubly constrained gravity model can successfully
estimate trips between all origin and destination zone pairs within the study region, dependent
on the estimation of the cost function.

The mode choice is done using a trip-interchange model, usually the multinomial logit model.
Trip interchange model has the advantage that it facilitates the inclusion of characteristics of
the journey as well as the modes used (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994). This advantage is
important in road project evaluation as it could be used to generate non-construction
alternatives such travel demand management. The number of trips between i andj using mode
m may be determined using Equation 9.14.

exp(aC..
yrn )
Urn ii

As the basic of traffic assignment and other previous steps, the minimum travel cost between
origin zone and destination zone using mode m is determined using Equation 9.15.

Gum (9.15)

Where a,jmr = 1 if and only if a is in path r from i toj using mode m or = 0 if otherwise,
Carn(Va) is the travel time (cost) on link a using mode m corresponding to a link volume Va.

To integrate all the steps into a single step, the algorithm of combined trip distribution and
trip assignment developed by Evans (1976) is adopted in this research. The Evans method is
extended to include trip generation model and modal split.

Evans (1976) expressed a combined calibration of the gravity model and the Wardrop user
equilibrium assignment problem as the minimisation problem with an assumption of
separable link cost function. The Evans (1976) model results from the following constrained
optimisation problem (Thomas 1991):
195
 Minimise Z = 1) (9.16)

Subject to the constraints

TyrO (9.17)

(9.18)

(9.19)

By using a combined trip distribution model and modal split model such as Equation 9.13 and
9.14, we may extend the Evans (1976) minimisation problem to include mode split. The
minimisation problem may be extended to:

Minimise Z = i) (9.20)

Subject to Equations 9.14-9.16.

The Evans (1976) algorithm (as cited in Thomas 1991) may also be extended to solve the
minimisation problem of Equation 9.20. The extended algorithm is as follows:

1. Set n = 1; initial inputs are trip matrix { }, flows of each mode m on link a { },
and total link flows (i.e. in passenger car unit/PCU) }; set a = 1
2. Determine (Equation 9.11)
3. Using link cost of each mode m corresponding to a link volume Va { Cma } for each
origin destination pair i-f, find a minimum cost path and the cost on the path for each
mode m { } (Equation 9.15) (Note that the minimum cost path could be different

between modes)
4. Determine { } (Equation 9.9)

5. Find the value of ,8 using modified Hyman method until minimum 4 is achieved
196
6. Split matrix } into matrix of each mode } using multinomial logit model such as

Equation 9.14 using the latest value of a; if the modelled mode split is sufficiently close to
the observed mode split, go to 7; otherwise determine another value of a and back to 4
7. Assign matrix of each mode the paths found in stage 3. Let be the flow of

mode m assigned to link a. For each mode set Using PCU factors (p),

calculate total link flows = and set =

8. Determine the trip frequencies, = + flows of each mode

} = + } and total link flows } = + }, which minimise
Z in Equation 9.20
9. Stop the process if stoping rule is achieved, otherwise set n = n + 1 and go to step 3.
10. Develop trip generation model with the latest S1.

According to Thomas (1991), there are three conditions that could be used as the basic of the
stopping rule for the capacity restrained assignment problem:

1. The difference between estimated quantities (usually link flows or costs) and observed
quantities
2. The agreement between the latest assumed link costs and assigned flows and the assumed
cost/flow relationships; and
3. The potential improvement, which may result from continuing the iterative process.

In terms of road project evaluation, the rule number 1 may be more appropriate as the purpose
of modelling is to estimate traffic volume.

The extension of Evans (1976) problem may have more advantages, in that it does not require
a base trip matrix of different mode and also could take advantages of the trip-interchange
modal split model.

The other advantage may be related to the parameter estimation method. In the extended
Evans (1976) algorithm, the parameter estimation process is relatively easy and all parameters
are estimated integrally in a single algorithm, so that all parameters could respond to any
changes of costs as well as socio economic variables at the same time. Thomas (1991)
discussed a procedure to estimate using the secant or bisection method.

197
9.4 Summary

The passenger travel demand development reported in this chapter may be summarised as
follows:

The conventional inclusion of an accessibility variable in trip generation model to make it

elastic often leads to unexpected result in that it is either insignificant or give wrong sign.
In order to have an elastic trip generation model that is required in road project evaluation,
parameters used in the other steps must be trip generation specific by which significant
correlation between accessibility variable and trip production could be ensured.
To improve trip generation elasticity, the accessibility variable must be calibrated
simultaneously with other steps, from traffic assignment to trip generation.
STEM, an available combined model of trip generation, trip distribution, modal split and
traffic assignment uses logit model for trip distribution which is usually less accurate than
the doubly constrained gravity model in term of aggregate data.
A combined model from trip generation to traffic assignment can be formed by extending
Evans (1976) combined trip distribution and traffic assignment. This is done by
incorporating trip generation model and modal split model in the algorithm.

198
 CHAPTER TEN

10 DEVELOPMENT OF FREIGHT DEMAND MODEL

10.1 Introduction

Generally, both urban and rural road networks support the movements of passengers as well
as the movement of freight. Freight transport plays an important role in economic
development of both urban and rural areas. On the other hand, it is often a major source of
traffic problems such as congestion, environmental degradation as well as social impacts of
those problems (D'este 2000).

The role of freight transport is even more significant in developing countries; freight transport
supports the growth of industries to be able to expand their market to overseas. Freight
transport also play an important role in the development of poor areas in developing countries
(Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994). Therefore, the importance of a freight demand model in
transport planning is no less than that of a passenger demand model.

The role of freight demand models in transport planning is not reflected in practice.
Modelling freight demand, especially aggregate (interregional) freight demand, has gained
relatively little attention in the literature compared to passenger transport demand, and even
compared to the modelling of logistic processes at firm level or commodity-level (Tavasszy,
Groothedde & Ruijgrok 2000; Fernandez, de Cea & Soto 2003).

The lack of research undertaken on freight movements is believed to be because of reasons

such as: the role of passenger transport in important transport' issues such as congestion being
considered higher than freight transport, and the freight movements being considered to be
more complex and difficult to model as there are more actors involved in the movements of
freight compared to the movements of passenger (Ortuzar & Willumsen, 1994).

The complexity of a freight transportation system also makes research in the freight demand
modelling diverse. Researchers of freight demand modelling come from different disciplines
with different techniques to overcome different problems. Freight demand models vary

199
widely starting from a detailed model such as scheduling of rail cars to a strategic model such
as determining the impacts of freight movements on national energy usage (Harker 1987).

As the characteristics of passenger transport and freight transport are different, so that
separate models of passenger demand and freight demand should be considered in road
network planning and in any transport planning. This chapter presents some freight demand
modelling techniques and development of an aggregate intercity freight demand model for
developing countries.

10.2 Freight Demand Modelling Approaches

10.2.1 Introduction

Techniques applied in freight demand modelling typically follow those applied in passenger
transport demand modelling. It is because in most cases (especially in urban areas), freight
demand modelling is a part of a broader context of urban planning in conjunction with or as
an extension of passenger demand modelling (D'este 2000).

The techniques generally can be classified into disaggregate and aggregate approaches, in
which the aggregate approach has more applications than the disaggregate approach (Ortuzar
& Willumsen 1994).

Harker (1987) discussed a detailed conceptual framework of a freight transportation system

and analytical approaches as well as other freight demand modelling techniques (see Harker
(1987) for further details).

10.2.2 The Causes of Freight Demand and Preliminary Modelling Steps

As for passenger demand, freight demand is also a derived demand. A product is transported
to a particular location when there is a demand to consume (use) the product at that location
(Coyle, Bardi & Novack 1994). One of main differences between passenger demand and
freight demand is the factors that affect the demand, because freight demands have more

200
complex and interdependent factors (FHWA 1998). According to FHWA (1998), this is
because:

freight travel decisions, mode choice and route choice are affected by decisions of several
parties including shippers, carriers and receivers;
different commodity types that have to be carried and each commodity has its own price
and its own value;
the units used to measure freight movements are varied including dollar value, quantity,
weight, volume, container, carload, truckload, etc.; and
determination of freight transport cost is much harder compared to the determination of
passenger transport cost because freight transport needs more specialised services (i.e.
handling, loading, unloading, classifying, storing, packaging, warehousing, inventorying,
etc.).

Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994) listed the most important factors that potentially affect freight
demand. Those factors are classified into locational factors, physical factors, operational
factors, geographical factors, dynamic factors, and pricing factors.

FHWA (1998) provided a more detailed list of factors that affect freight demand, that can be
classified into the economy, industrial location patterns, globalisation of business,
international trade agreements, international transportation agreements, just-in-time inventory
practice, carrie-shipper alliances, centralised warehousing, packaging materials, recycling,
economic regulation and deregulation, intermodal operating agreements, fuel prices, publicly
provided infrastructure, user charges and other taxes, government subsidisation of carriers,
environmental policies and restrictions, safety policies and restrictions, effects of changes in
truck size and weight limits, congestion, and technological advances.

Nam (1997) stated that the complexity and diversity of the freight market make it difficult to
model freight demand in a single market. Aggregation of heterogenous commodity types can
lead to an estimation bias of a freight demand model. Therefore, freight demand models are
normally disaggregated over commodity groups.

To allow the disaggregation, we commonly need to add a partitioning step where we can
divide the freight market into several sectors in which their demand and trip characteristics
are internally consistent. D'este (2000) suggested using some key categories, such as
commodity, load type, vehicle type and function, and internal and external, to classify freight
201
transport market. It is then possible to have many commodity matrices in freight demand
studies. The other preliminary steps of freight demand modelling such as zoning system and
network representation are similar to the passenger demand modelling.

10.2.3 Disaggregate Approach

Discrete choice models originally developed for disaggregate passenger demand modelling
(discussed in chapter 6 section 6.4.3 and chapter 7 section 7.5.1) are commonly adapted for
disaggregate freight demand modelling. In the disaggregate approach, decisions of making
trips are made by a number of different agents including shippers, receivers and carriers.

The utility functions of discrete choice can include some key factors considered to affect
decisions in freight movements; those are the characteristics of the transport service (e.g.
tariffs, times, reliability, damage and loss, minimum consignment, etc.), the attributes of the
goods that need transport service (e.g. type of commodity, volume/weight ratio, value/weight
ratio, perishability, inventory system and ownership), the characteristics of the market (e.g. its
relative prices, firm size, availability of loading/unloading facilities, general infrastructure
facilities), and the attributes of the shipping firm (e.g. its production level, sales prices, plant
location, available infrastructure facilities, storage policy, etc.) (Ortuzar & Wiliumsen 1994).

The majority of freight demand modelling has focused on shipper/receiver mode choice
problems or intermodal competition (see for example Friedlaender and Spady (1980),
Winston (1981), McGinnis (1989), Nam (1997)). Winston (1981) stated that the application
of discrete choice models in freight mode choice has several advantages in that it offers much
richer econometric specification, gives more precise estimates of market elasticities and is
more sensitive to any policies as it is based on the behavioural theory of decision making.

However, according to Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994) the application of the discrete choice
model in modelling national freight movements has been limited. This is because of a limited
understanding of the variables in the utility functions and because more efforts are needed in
the data collection. Nam (1997) pointed out that the applications of disaggregate approach in
freight demand model need to take into account the cost efficiency of the analysis and the
appropriateness of aggregate models for prediction.

202
10.2.4 Aggregate Approach

In aggregate approaches, the classic four-step model is commonly applied with some
modification to meet freight characteristics. As in passenger travel demand modelling, the
classic aggregate four-step model also consists of trip generation, trip distribution, and
assignment of origin-destination movements to modes and routes (Ortuzar & Willumsen
1994).

The trip generation model is used to estimate total freight demand produced by and attracted
to each zone, in terms of volume (tonnage), number of units or consignments, or vehicle trips.
It can be estimated using several techniques applied in passenger demand model such as
historic trend extrapolation and growth factor methods, economic forecast, regression
techniques, and trip generation rates. The first two techniques assumes that baseline freight
demand data in time series form are available, so that we can extrapolate them to a targeted
planning horizon or estimate trends in industry logistics and relevant economic factors. The
last two techniques relate zonal freight demand with zonal characteristics such as
employment, population, and income (D'este 2000).

The most common techniques applied to distribute traffic between zones are gravity model
and linear programming. Some researchers have also applied the direct-demand type (e.g.
Sjafruddin, Astuti & Frazila. 1999).

The linear programming approach aims to minimise total haulage costs (usually in money
terms), subject to supply and demand constraint. The linear programming approach is
considered to be less flexible compared to gravity model. Several conditions should be meet
to apply the linear programming approach, those are: the industry is concentrated in a few
firms, there are low value goods and relatively high transport costs, and there are few demand
points (zones) (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

Another approach could be applied for trip distribution modelling is artificial neural network
originally attempted to simulate neural network activity of the brain for computer-based
artificial intelligence systems. The predictive capabilities of artificial neural network models,
in which it was one of the need of the general field of spatial modelling including transport
made artificial neural networks remain interesting (Black 1995).

203
Black (1995) used one of artificial neural network models called the backpropagation model
to study commodity flows between the nine census regions of the USA. The study performed
a comparison between an unconstrained gravity model, a fully constrained gravity model and
a gravity artificial neural network model. Inputs used in the study were regional flow
production, regional flow attraction and the interregional distance between the origin and
destination region. The conclusion of the study was that the gravity artificial neural network
demonstrated a 50 per cent less of errors than the fully constrained gravity model.

The mode choice in freight demand modelling is used to assign freight demand to available
modes, and it is essentially the shipper's decision. In the aggregate approach, the multinomial
logit based on generalised cost is usually applied (Ortuzar & Willumsen, 1994).

McGinnis (1989) discussed four models of freight mode choice: classical economic model,
inventory-theoretic model, trade-off model, and constrained optimisation model. The classical
economic model uses the fixed and variable costs of competing modes (for example rail and
truck) and assumes that freight movements from an origin to a certain theoretical distance
should be dominated by one mode (e.g. truck) and beyond that distance by the other mode
(e.g. rail). The main aim of the inventory-theoretic model is to optimise modal choice by
considering trade-off among freight rates, speed, dependability (variance in speed), and
enroute lossage. The trade-off model is based on an assumption that rational shipper will
choose a mode between two competing modes that minimises the total of transportation costs
and non-transportation costs. The constrained optimisation model aims to minimise
transportation costs subject to several non-transportation cost constraints (e.g. product
constraint, distribution pattern constraint, service need constraint) in which the non-
transportation costs could be qualitative. McGinnis (1989) showed that the constrained
optimisation model has more support in the empirical literature compared to the other models
(see McGinnis (1989) for further details of the mode choice models).

The traffic assignment in freight demand modelling is the carrier's decision regarding the best
route to deliver goods from origin to destination. Capacity restraint assignment is considered
suitable for urban freight movements and stochastic assignment is considered suitable for
inter-urban situations. In more details, different types of vehicles and commodity groups must
be treated separately as the constraint and objective of each vehicle and each commodity are
different; some vehicles are very sensitive to road geometry and time minimisation is more
essential to some goods. Some researchers have also extended the whole freight demand
modelling to the system or market equilibrium problem (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

204
Harker (1987) developed an equilibrium model called the generalised spatial price
equilibrium model (GSPEM). The GSPEM offers a single mathematical statement
incorporating behavioural models of the producers, consumers, shippers and carriers to be
able to estimate goods production and consumption, shippers' routeing of freight, freight
rates, and shippers' routeing of freight traffic (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994).

More recently, Fernandez, de Cea and Soto (2003) presented the application of the four-step
model for predicting intercity freight demand. Fernandez, de Cea and Soto (2003) application
focused on the multi-modal supply-demand equilibrium problem. The demand side represents
the behaviour of shippers and the supply side represent the behaviour of carriers. The shippers
make decisions regarding destination choice, mode choice, and carrier choice for pure modes
and transfer point choice for combined modes. Carriers on the other hand make decision
related to route choice of multi-modal, multi-product and multi-operator network. The model
was segregated according to product transported, trade type and shipment size. The gravity
model was applied in trip distribution and multinomial logit was applied in mode choice. The
equilibrium problem was dependent on the type of the carrier considered, Wardrop's system
optimisation principle was applied for carriers operating scheduled service and Wardrop's
individual equilibrium principle considering the private marginal cost experienced by the
carrier was applied for carriers operating non-scheduled services.

10.3 The Direct Demand Model

10.3.1 The Basic Direct Demand Model

The main objective of freight demand model development in this research is to estimate
freight flows on links in a road network as a part of road network planning. To offer an
alternative for the aggregate four-step model, this research considers applying direct demand
models to estimate intercity freight demand in Central Java Province.

The direct demand models are closely related to the general econometric models of demand.
The application of the models claimed to avoid some of the weaknesses of the conventional
four-step model of travel demand. The attractiveness of direct demand models is that they

205
calibrate simultaneously trip generation, distribution and mode choice, including attributes of
competing modes and a wide range of level of service and activity variables.

There has been an application of direct demand model for estimating regional road freight
movement in Java Island, Indonesia (Sj afrudin, Astuti & Frazila 1999). The intercity transport
costs were derived from an interview survey of freight transport operators. They concluded
that the application of the model was inconclusive, where the model cannot reach best fit
between observed and estimated data.

The application of direct demand models has been mainly in the inter-urban context, with
very few applications in urban areas as these models are claimed to be more useful for
demand analysis where the zones are large.

There are some models with different forms that have been applied in intercity studies (see
Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994). The form of the basic direct demand model is essentially linear
or quasi-linear statistical regression:

T!jmr = (10.1)

where T,jmr denotes trip from i toj using mode m and route r, aymr and /3,jkmr are parameters to

be calibrated. The Xmr represents various attributes of demand zones, destination, modes
and routes (Oppenheim, 1995).

Wirasinghe and Kumarage (1998) indicated that most econometric models employed to
estimate intercity travel in developing countries are simple gravity models of the form of
Equation 10.1.

10.3.2 The Limitations of The Basic Direct Demand Models

The direct demand model is also one of gravity-type models. Equation 10.2 is an example of
common form of the model (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994):

206
 )flkl (I.I.)flk2 )aklfl]
Tifk = 9k (10.2)

where P is population, I is income, t and c are travel time and cost of travel between i andj by
mode k, and 0, fi, and a are parameters to calibrate. The problem with this form is that as long
as travel costs from i to j are equal to travel costs from j to i, then T,1 should be equal to Tj,,
which rarely happens with real data. To overcome this limitation, Wirasinghe and Kumarage
(1998) put restrictions on their model so that the model is for one direction only where P1

Another method to overcome that limitation is by reforming the model structure into the
following form (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994):

T11k = 8k1V3k1 pfikl j./3k2 j.13k2 1_J[(tm)ak,fl

(10.3)

The problem with Equation 10.3 is that PL, PJ, and must all be statistically significant. If
that condition cannot be fulfilled, then it is possible to have only P, and 1,, or and in the
equation.

The gravity-type model such as Equation 10.2 is the most common functional form of the
basic direct demand models. Based on the Equation 10.2, it is assumed that factors affecting
trip production and factors affecting trip attraction are similar, for example population of
destination zones attract population of origin zones, income of destination zones attract
income of origin zones, and so on. Such an assumption may be inappropriate as in many cases
factors affecting freight production are different from factors affecting freight attraction.

A zone could be freight transport producer but not a freight transport attractor and vice versa.
For example, the movements of agricultural products between two agricultural producer zones
could be low, because there is no need of agricultural product at agricultural producer zones.
So that low or even negative correlation could occur. Equation 10.2 assumes, for example,
that two agricultural producer zones will produce high agricultural products movements.

If a variable is statistically significant to affect freight production but is insignificant to affect

freight attraction, then it is possible that the variable cannot be included in the basic direct

207
demand model. It is also possible that a variable has positive effect on freight production but
has negative effect on freight attraction, and vice versa.

The position of transport cost variable in the basic direct demand model is equal to other
variables. Socio-economic variables included in the model independent of transport cost
between zone pairs. Such assumption could be inappropriate as socio-economic variables
should be included in the model together with transport costs between zone pairs. Transport
cost is a key determinant in spatial interaction. Multiplication of origin zones variable with
destination zones variable could have no correlation with spatial interaction between zone
pairs, but it could improve significantly when transport cost is included. Furthermore, the
transport cost is usually included in the model without specifying its correct functional form
first.

Wirasinghe and Kumarage (1998) suggested that the deficiencies of the basic direct demand
models (simple gravity models) are as follows:

1. Large calibration errors. Because the simple gravity models have multiplicative forms so
that relatively small input errors are also multiplied into large output errors.
2. Correlation between socio-economic variables. Often the socio-economic variables are
highly correlated, so that only a single socio-economic variable can enter the model.
3. Correlation between impedance variables. Often there is high degree of correlation
between impedance variables such as travel cost and travel time.
4. Inappropriate functional forms. The simple form of the gravity models can yield
unrealistic values and their elasticities may not be plausible.
5. Spatially non-transferable. The simple gravity models generally ignore any intrinsic
characteristics of the pair of zones. Then we need to separate special attributes from the
general attributes to avoid an error of generalisation.

10.4 Improving the Basic Direct Demand Model

10.4.1 Model Structure and Estimation

The basic direct demand models usually have linear, multiplicative or exponential functional
forms. Wirasinghe and Kumarage (1998) stated that the functional forms of direct demand

208
model could be different from the functional forms of the basic direct demand model. We
should specify the correct functional form of the direct demand model.

The model structure of direct demand model proposed in this research is intended to
overcome the limitations of the basic direct demand model and it is based on several
assumptions as discussed below.

1. Socio-economic variables of a destination zone do not act individually as a measure of

zone attractiveness factors. The socio-economic variables of a destination zone forms a
single unit of value called utility that represent the attractiveness of the zone (as in the
case of disaggregate model).

2. Observed volume of freight movements from an origin zone to a destination zone (Ii,)
reflects the utility of the destination zone viewed from the origin zone So that
may be determined using Equation 10.5, where represents socio-economic variables

affecting freight attraction.

k=],2,...,K (10.5)

3. variables of origin zones must be associated as well as transport costs

when included in the model. So that an independent variable of the direct demand model
is a combination of a socio-economic variable of origin zone utility of destination j
viewed from origin i, and transport costs between origin and destination It is assumed
that both and affect origin zone exponentially. The independent variable may be
calculated using Equation 10.6.

(10.6)

4. Freight movements between two zones T,, are a function of several and may be
calculated using Equation 10.7 where the 0 's are parameters to be calibrated.

209
 7; = + (10.7)

The model can be estimated using the following procedure:

1. Select variables considered to affect freight attraction and estimate

2. Select variables considered affecting freight production and estimate for each variable.
We could use nave method to estimate a and Fix the value of a at a given level and
varying the value of then fix the value of a at another level and vary the value of f3 and
so on. Select a and $ that maximise which is the sum of (coefficient of correlation

between and 7;) divided by the sum of (coefficient of correlation between an

independent variable with another independent variable).

maxp= (10.8)

3. Develop direct demand model 7;.

By applying the improved direct demand model, freight demand form i to j is not necessarily
equal to freight demand betweenj and 1, although the transport cost is equal. The use of utility
ensures that variables affecting freight production and variables affecting freight attraction
could be different.

The use of Equation 10.8 in determining a and is intended to obtain the highest correlation
coefficients between independent variables and dependent variable and to obtain the lowest
correlation coefficients between independent variables themselves. This could increase the
chance of independent variables to be admitted into the model.

Overall the improved model has appropriate structure and functional form. Given that all data
are available, the improved direct demand model proposed in this research can be extended to
include mode choice and traffic assignment using the extended Evans (1976) algorithm
developed in chapter 9. The model can also be considered as an elastic aggregate model
where the model can take into account the change of transport costs or the change of transport
supply.
210
10.4.2 Incorporating Spatial Structure Effects

The understanding of spatial structure effects on transport could assist planners in selecting
locations of activities that have high accessibility and could minimise transport costs to all
locations in a network. On the other hand, planners also could decide to set priorities in
expanding the road network that will also produce least transport costs in the whole network.

As intercity road networks do not usually offer many alternative routes from one locationlcity
to other locations/cities, the city position in the road network could be a key determinant of
freight demand. Applications of freight demand models in developing countries tend to ignore
this variable.

Fotheringham (1983) stated that when a spatial structure variable is not included in the model,
then spatial structure is implicitly reflected in the distance component, which is then
necessarily biased.

In Indonesia and probably also in other developing countries, most cities grew along the main
road network as local road transport networks were usually not well established in the initial
urban developments. The trend is still continuing where new activity centres emerge along
main roads, although other smaller roads have been improved and some new roads have been
built. These conditions may be due to higher level of accessibility offered by main roads.

Spatial structures effects can be examined using a disaggregate approach and an aggregate
approach. In a disaggregate approach, several models have been applied such as logit models
(Pellegrini & Fothenngham 2002). In an aggregate approach, researchers usually employed
gravity-type models (Guldmann 1999).

Pellegrini and Fotheringham (2002) stated that spatial and aspatial choices differ in
processing information. The number of alternatives is commonly much larger in spatial
choices, so that a traditional multinomial logit (MNL), which requires individuals to
simultaneously evaluate all alternatives, is inappropriate.

It could happen in the MINL applications that a destination with maximum utility is not
selected because it is never evaluated. Therefore, a weight of the utility of an alternative is
needed. The weight measures the probability of the alternative is actually evaluated. The
MNL model then become:
211
 = E G) =
(10.11)
m m
(j G)
k=l k=l

where is the probability of individual n (from origin i) selecting destinationj, Va,, is the
utility of destination j viewed by individual n in origin i, and EG) is the likelihood that
alternativej is in individual n 'S (from i) chosen cluster G. This general model is known as the
competing destination model, where c denotes the competing measure and a is an index to
measure the level of hierarchical information processing, which needs to be estimated.
Competing effects are present if c<O, which means that alternatives in close proximity to
others are less likely to be selected. Agglomeration effects are present if a>O, when the
attraction of a cluster increases as the number of alternatives in it increases. If a=O then there
are no competing or agglomeration effects.

If we assume people use a hierarchical information processing strategy by selecting clusters

of alternatives first before selecting a destination from within a selected cluster, then potential
accessibility measures, which describe the accessibility of a destination to all other
destinations, can be used. Pellegrini and Fotheringham (2002) suggested using a Hansen type
potential accessibility:

ia

(10.12)

where M is the total number of alternatives, Wk is the mass of destination zone, and is the
distance from j to k (all other alternatives available to person n and origin i). Large values
mean alternatives are in close proximity and low values mean alternatives are spatially
isolated.

An accessibility value indicates the ease (benefits or costs associated with travel) of people or
commodities to travel from specific locations to other locations. Accessibility could also
involve spatial structure and transport network characteristics. Thus, we could examine the
connection between transport network and spatial structure in order to determine the effects of
one upon the other using accessibility (Primerano 2001).
212
Guldman (1999) accounted for the effects of spatial structure on the inter-city
telecommunication flows. The effects were measured using competing destination (CD)
factors and intervening opportunities (JO) factors. The basic idea of intervening-opportunities
model was proposed by of Stouffer (1940). The intervening-opportunities model assumes that
there is no explicit relation between trip making and distance; trip making is related to the
relative accessibility of opportunities for satisfying the objective of the trip maker (Ortuzar &
Willumsen 1994)

Guidman's (1999) model was a gravity-type model. His basic model is as follow:

(10.13)

where is measure of the flow from location ito locationj, is the distance from i toj,
is telephone price per unit of flow from i to j, and X01 and variables characterising the
flow-originating market at i and the flow-receiving market at j, while represents CD/JO
factors. He concluded that spatial structure has significant effects on telecommunication flow
patterns and that all destinations compete.

Guldman (1999) incorporated the reverse flows as one of variable or one of independent
variable. The possible explanation for the inclusion is that the model was developed mainly to
account the spatial structure effects on telecommunication flow and not to estimate
telecommunication flow. In transport demand models, both and are dependent variables
need to be estimated.

10.5 Summary

This chapter presents the improvement of the basic direct demand model and may be
summarised as follows:

Freight demand modelling techniques generally follow passenger demand modelling

techniques in which the aggregate demand modelling approach has more applications than
the disaggregate modelling approach.

213
 Freight demand models are commonly segregated based on the commodity type as each
commodity has different characteristics.
The direct demand model is one aggregate model commonly applied in modelling spatial
interaction including freight movements. In order to offer an alternative to the four-step
model developed in chapter 9, the direct demand model is applied in modelling inter-sub
province freight demand in Central Java.
The basic direct demand model, which is actually a gravity-type model, has several
limitations that often lead to low performance of the calibrated model.
This research introduces a new structure and procedure in developing direct demand
model.
The procedure includes specification of independent variables before admitted into the
model and improvement of transport cost function that make it possible to be extended to
include mode choice and traffic assignment.
Spatial structure effects on freight demand are taken into account in the improved model
using competing destination factor and intervening opportunities factor.

214
 CHAPTER ELEVEN

11 APPLICATIONS OF THE TRANSPORT DEMAND

MODELS

11.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the applications of the transport demand models presented in chapter 9
and 10. The models are applied to forecast traffic volume on Central Java road network and to
evaluate the 2011 Central Java road network planning (Ministry of Regional Infrastructure
and Settlement of Indonesia 2005).

The other objectives of applying the models are to demonstrate the process of transport
demand forecasting using the developed models and to test the elasticity feature of the
models.

To apply the passenger demand model and the freight demand model, the following steps are
applied: study area and zone determination, network model generation and travel time
estimation, model calibration and model application. Model validation is not performed since
there is no other set of data available.

11.2 Study Area and Zoning

11.2.1 Socio-economic Conditions

The study area of this research is the Central Java province of Indonesia. Based on the data
from Central Statistics Bureau of Central Java (1997 and 2002), the socio-economic
conditions of the Central Java province can be summarised as follows:

1. Central Java province is one of six provinces on Java Island. The Central Java province is
divided into smaller administrative boundaries called kabupaten (sub-province) and kota
215
 madya (municipality). There are 29 sub-provinces and 6 municipalities. Overall, the total
area of the Central Java province is 3.25 million hectares, or around 25.04 per cent of the
total area of the Java Island, which is 1.7 per cent of the total area of Indonesia.
2. Central Java province was the third most populated province in Indonesia with 31.06
million people in 2001. The population was distributed such that the municipalities had
more population than the sub-provinces, and the capital cities of the sub-provinces had
more population than the rest of the area of the sub-provinces. The population growth was
one percent per year based on the 1996 national socio-economic survey.
3. The economic growth, which is indicated by gross regional domestic product (GRDP),
was relatively high in 1996 (7.3 per cent). This growth declined significantly in 2001,
where it was only 3.33 per cent per year. This decline was believed to be the impact of
economic crisis started in 1998, from which Indonesia is still struggling to recover. The
GRDP was mainly determined by manufacturing industries and agriculture sectors in both
1996 and 2001.

4. There was a gap in income between urban and rural areas and also between sub-provinces
in Central Java province. For instance, in 1995 (before the economic crisis in 1998) the
income per capita of the city of Semarang (the capital city of Central Java province) was
4,398,776 Indonesian Rupiahs, while the average of income per capita of other sub-
provinces was only 1,469,524 Indonesian Rupiahs.

S
Sufliut
Riau
- *

Papua Time'

Central Java

Figure 11.1 Map of Indonesia

Source: Central Government of Indonesia (2004)

216
11.2.2 Road Network Conditions

The capital cities of the sub-provinces are connected by the Central Java road network.
Overall, there were 1,215 km of national roads and 2,589 km of provincial roads. The width
of arterial roads varied from 5 m to 15 m, and the width of collector roads varied from 4 m to
14 m. By the year 2000 only 41 per cent of all the roads were in good condition (Central
Statistics Bureau of Central Java 2002).

Leciend:
Province Capital
Sub-province Capital
o Other Cities
Province Border
- Sub-province Border
Ateiial Road
Collector Road 1
Collector Road 2
Collector Road 3
River

Figure 11.2 Central Java intercity road network

Source: Ministry of Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia (2004)

From the demand point of view, many intercity roads in the Central Java network had mixed
traffic from non-motorised vehicles to heavy trucks and buses, which could also indicate that
the roads had mixed functions from local to arterial. One output of the national origin
destination study in Indonesia in 1996 was that the percentage of local traffic on intercity
roads in Central Java province was relatively high. This is indicated by the percentage of
motorcycle and non-motorised vehicle from total traffic on intercity road, which reached a
number of 12.4 per cent and 30.8 per cent (Ministry of Communications of Indonesia 1997).

The Performance of the Central Java road network is considered poor, especially the North
Coast route, which is part of the Java Island main arterial route, that provides road transport
service connecting cities from Sumatra to the Timor Island. The travel speeds on road
217
sections of the North Coast route ranged from 40 km/h to 71 km/h (Rizal 1999), which are
very low for intercity arterial road.

The Ministry of Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia (2004) reported that the
low performance of roads section in the main arterial route is as a result of several factors, as
follows:

1. Low quality of road design and maintenance where there are gaps between planned design
and applied design. It was found that many road sections were degraded before their
planned maintenance schedules were due.
2. Road freight transport vehicles are often overloaded, far above the appropriate limits for
the road class.
3. Control of accesses on most roads to meet the requirements of road function is poor.
There are many residential buildings as well as other buildings that generate high number
of trips and have direct access to the main arterial roads.
4. The lack of control of access leads to a worse situation where many activities such as
traditional markets take place on the road shoulder.

Figure 11.3 might tell more than words about the general condition of arterial roads in the
Java Island (Kompas 2003). Figure 11.3 shows a traditional market that takes place on the
road shoulder and even on some of roadway, while intercity buses as well as heavy vehicles
are in the traffic.

218
 Figure 11.3 An example of road environment of main arterial road in Java Island

Source: Kompas (2003)

11.2.3 Zoning System

Overall the study area of this research is divided into 35 sub-provinces and the sub-provinces
boundary is then used as internal zone boundaries. The use of sub-provinces as zones has a
consequence that zone size is very large and may affect the accuracy of the model; they are in
a range of 34 hectares to 2134 hectares. The available socio-economic data are in the sub-
province level as well.

There are two external zones considered, one is in the west side of Central Java (zone 36) and
the other one is in the east side of Central Java (zone 37).

219
11.3 Network Model Development and Travel Cost Estimation

11.3.1 Network Model Development

The traffic assignment step in this study is done using TrafikPlan (Taylor 1992). TrafikPlan is
actually a traffic network database, but it has modelling capability. TrafikPlan is developed
for dense network modelling. It has capability for traffic assignment modelling. The traffic
assignment in TrafikPlan is done using stochastic equilibrium assignment model. Overall, the
modelling capability of TrafikPlan can be applied for network simulation, network synthesis,
and impact analysis. TrafikPlan had been applied in several countries including Indonesia
(Taylor 1992).

The traffic assignment process is started with network model development. It is started from
network data entry in the TrafikPlan master menu. The nodes are placed on X and Y co-
ordinates, and each node is numbered. The links are roads connecting two nodes. After all
nodes are connected, then roads/links are defined by giving road name and sequence of the
nodes along that road. Once the roads have been defined, link description must be given. The
link description includes street length and direction, one-way or two-way operation on the
link, road type, number of lanes, and parking restrictions. The road classes included in the
study area are arterial and collector. Overall, there are 328 one-way links in the network.

Origin and destination of trips in TrafikPlan start and finish on links, not on nodes as usually
applied in aggregate model. This condition could reflect the situation in the study area where
vehicles may park anywhere on the midblock. To represent zones centroids, additional links
are given from the capital city of sub-provinces. The modelled road network is presented in
Figure 11.4.

In order to take into account the Indonesian conditions in travel time estimation, the free flow
travel times estimated using TrafikPlan is adjusted to the free flow travel times estimated
using the Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual (IHCM) method (Sweroad 1997).

The free flow travel time is determined by transforming free flow travel speed. Based on the
Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual (IHCM) method, free flow speed on a link is a
function of road geometry, number of lanes, lane width, side friction, road function and land
use, and the presence of median. The IHCM assumes that the road pavement is in either

220
medium or good condition. The IHCM method is unsuitable for roads with IRI (International
Roughness Index) level higher than 6 or unpaved road.

203 204

13

'4

Figure 11.4 Nodes and links number

TrafikPlan uses the Davidson congestion function (Equation 6.22 discussed in chapter 6) to
estimate link travel time (Taylor 1992). The Davidson congestion function is also adopted in
the 11-1CM, so that there is a similarity between TrafikPlan and the IHCM in estimating link
travel time. The differences are related to link capacity and free flow travel time.

TrafikPlan estimates capacity value for each turning movement and midblock lane. It depends
on road type, lane configuration, intersection geometry, and the mix of traffic flows (e.g.
major and minor streams at priority intersections, etc), thus link travel time is the summation
of midblock lane travel time and delays at intersection (Taylor 1992).

However because the links in the Central Java intercity road network are relatively long, then
the proportion of delays at intersections is relatively small. As the intersections in the network
are actually capital cities and other small cities along the network, then the delays at
intersection could represent the congestion experienced by intercity travellers on urban roads.

221
In adjusting the link travel times of TrafikPlan to the link travel times of the IHCM, trial and
error process is applied. For example if the TrafikPlan link travel time is higher than the
IHCM travel time, then the length of the link is reduced. In contrast, if the TrafikPlan link
travel time is lower than the IHCM, then midblock parking is added to the link. The trial and
error process is possible as we can check the link travel time by opening the TrafikPlan.QED
file, which contains output of link based variables.

The outputs of TrafikPlan network generation process are presented in Figure 11.5 and 11.6.
Figure 11.5 is the modelled road type and Figure 11.6 is the modelled free flow speed. It can
be seen that the free flow speed of arterial roads are all more than 60 km/h and the free flow
speed of collector roads are in two ranges, between 30 to 40 kmlh and between 40 to 60 kmlh.

The free flow speed on arterial roads estimated using the IHCM is between 60 to 69 km/h,
and on collector roads is between 41 to 57 kmlh. Full reports of travel time estimation results
are given in appendix B.

Traf ikPian interact we Network Lispiag for C: \nydocWi\jateng\jarjai

TYPES

UOONERF

Figure 11.5 Modelled road network and street types

222
ITraf ikP lan Interactive Network Di SF) lay for C : 1\jateng\jarja 1

LINK
SPEED

> 60

20 3D

Observed
Data

Figure 11.6 - Modelled road network and free flow speed

11.3.2 Travel Cost Estimation

Travel cost between a pair of internal zones is represented by travel time between those two
zones. In this study, the free flow travel time is applied to calibrate the passenger transport
demand model and the freight demand model. Then travel time in future year, where road
network changes from the base year road network may occur, can be estimated.

TrafikPian has a facility to generate the shortest path and travel time between a pair of zone in
modelling menu. The shortest travel times between pairs of zone must be recorded manually.

The shortest free flow travel time between two sub-provinces is 19 minutes, namely from
Pekalongan to Batang (from link 22-207 to 23-208). The longest free travel time between two
sub-provinces is 291.33 minutes, namely from Cilacap to Jepara (from link 113-114 to link
201-202).

223
11.4 Passenger Demand Model Calibration

The passenger demand data used to calibrate the model are the result of the national origin
destination survey of Indonesia undertaken by Ministry of Communications of Indonesia in
2001. The main result of the survey was the number of passenger between sub-provinces
using road transports per year, the data are not divided by mode.

The external zones are excluded from model calibration since the travel costs from and to
external zones are hard to define. The external zones trip production is estimated using the
growth factor method. The average growth of total trip produced by internal zones to other
internal zones is used as the growth factor. The numbers of trip from internal zones to
external zones are also estimated using the growth factor method.

It is assumed that the distribution of total trips produced by an external zone is similar to the
observed data. For example if observed trip from an external zone to a particular internal zone
is 10 per cent, then it will remain 10 per cent in any scenarios regardless the transport costs
and other variables.

The socio-economic data available and considered to affect travel demand in the study area
are presented in Table 11.1. The population is divided into capital city population and rural
population to be able to capture the effect of city size on travel demand. It is assumed that the
population of capital city or city density has more effect on intercity travel demand. Capital
cities of sub-provinces usually have more transport facilities, so that people of the capital
cities have higher level of accessibility than rural people.

224
 Table 11.1 The 2001 socio-economic variable for passenger demand model

Sub-Province Total GRDP City Rural

population (in million rupiah) Population Population
Cilacap 1613964 6846182 223835 1390129
3anyumas 1460324 1040237 225528 1234796
788675 629866 57041 731634
838962 852467 84627 754335
ebumen 1166604 915370 121368 1045236
704063 707551 86765 617298
Vonosobo 739648 527635 78701 660947
4agelang 1102359 1096202 75451 1026908
897207 935468 60326 836881
1109486 1247747 120686 988800
Sukoharjo 780946 1157847 87855 693091
Vonogiri 967178 804087 83754 883424
761988 1210085 67275 694713
Sragen 845320 712656 64133 781187
Grobogan 1271500 741821 124125 1147375
3lora 813675 723135 89536 724139
559523 524181 79853 479670
1154506 969013 103959 1050547
(udus 709905 3185798 99315 610590
Jepara 980443 1037969 65307 915136
)emak 984741 769048 102284 882457
Semarang 834314 1082379 98880 735434
femanggung 665470 728586 85798 579672
(endal 851504 1594833 49676 801828
3atang 665426 737198 111955 553471
807051 899546 96078 710973
1271404 1124314 187047 1084357
regal 1391184 952071 65905 1325279
3rebes 1711364 1447844 151646 1559718
Viagelang City 116800 328162 116800 0
Surakarta City 489900 1353883 489900 0
Salatiga City 155244 263645 155244 0
Semarang City 1353047 5405239 1353047 0
Pekalongan City 263190 453338 263190 0
regal City 236900 377702 236900 0

Source: Central Statistics Bureau of Central Java, (2002) and Ministry of Regional
Infrastructure and Settlement (2005)

Some sub-provinces do not have rural areas. They were actually the capital cities of sub-
provinces; then become sub-provinces themselves as they have socio-economic capacities to
become sub-provinces. They do not have rural areas, so that their rural area population are
zero.

The model development is started with developing a traditional trip production model without
incorporating an accessibility variable. The traditional model is used as benchmark model to
225
value whether the accessibility variable significantly improves the model or not. The
benchmark model is shown in Equation 11.1 where CP denotes city population.

=(1.2x107)+(49.293CP) (11.1)

The t value for CP is 6.328, which is statistically significant, but the R2 of 0.548 is relatively
low. Equation 11.1 shows that city population affect passenger travel demand in the study the
Central Java province.

The next step is developing a function that measure of attraction of zone j (E'). Again, city
population also affect trip attraction in the study area. The R2 of Equation 11.2 is 0.492 and
the t value for CP is 5.648.

= (1.2x 107)+(47.864CP) (11.2)

The iterative process found the minimum value of 4) when f3 is equal to 0.02063. The
coefficient of correlation between observed trip production and accessibility is 0.47. This
produces equal mean cost from MTLD and mean cost from OTLD, which are 81.03 minutes.

After completing the accessibility variable calculation, then we can develop an elastic trip
generation model. The following is the improved trip production model, which is elastic as
the accessibility variable is significant and with correct sign, RP denotes rural population.

I', = (1.2 x + (40.909CP) + (O.238S1) + (1O.069RP) (11.3)

where Si is the measure of accessibility defined by equation (9.5). The R2 of Equation 11.3 is
0.716, and t values for CP, Si and RP are 6.058, 4.220 and 2.2 15 respectively. All variables
are significant and the R2 improves significantly explaining that the accessibility variable
affect travel demand in the study area. It again shows that city population significantly
influences travel demand in the Central Java province.

Finally, the doubly constrained gravity model also produces significant results. It produces
equal trip length distribution between modelled and observed data. Some of the results of
model calibration are presented in Table 11.2.

226
 Table 11.2 Some results of model calibration

Production
Annual Trip
.

Annual Tnp
.
.

..
Accessibility
.
Balancmg .
.

Attraction
Production Attraction Balancmg Factor
Factor
17782115 14722985 31990244 36009787 0.47193
19361504 18763884 36240946 39148724 0.53467
9116228 6093697 41306848 48779055 0.64987
10025609 13684832 49797825 51558924 0.72961
9849073 8848263 40702707 46901531 0.58826
9816260 11758472 50518127 54377182 0.66809
15153498 9835938 55940212 59265165 0.74322
15543019 20629912 59745987 58613911 0.71874
13565818 13998897 104849203 108744070 1.23934
12294736 10047701 83042669 87821217 1.00165
14851776 16245294 88506609 92651772 1.04577
8952064 9680325 52244322 54192254 0.60940
10833409 10532905 78321141 83157826 0.93337
12902831 12366919 71715198 75337056 0.84316
12504536 15262736 48516714 53366574 0.57031
8027740 6703489 22662150 23809623 0.24887
6007870 6388792 51420665 60279220 0.6485 1

14224200 14323339 74925352 84902109 0.90084

24110455 19623098 93723916 106364364 1.10135
17530354 16740586 33695153 36001761 0.37997
17768923 47080292 115156901 117520489 1.37756
59306643 57550140 137333823 129762851 1.45365
26884716 11599768 85315309 89379668 1.02031
26156607 22429342 112756938 115810400 1.27138
10864076 12421084 88080421 87515712 0.99917
12278199 16880991 87349920 83657642 0.98204
12736020 12355926 73413903 83861747 0.99474
25058285 28431974 64079234 71045817 0.89914
36021646 29363598 60409995 64929859 0.75602
City 14474354 16392945 91717341 96092587 1.16363
City 44068265 46899910 88741516 82920744 0.94912
City 21741360 13929860 119438416 128699550 1.44352
City 78607548 76390187 101308805 123855248 1.36122
11501625 11225952 82877529 88044275 0.99350
24875347 25592680 66655633 82289471 1.01372

A complete extended Evans (1976) algorithm cannot be applied in this application since the
data to perform mode split analysis and full traffic volume data are unavailable. The use of
free flow travel time to calibrate trip generation model in this study is justified, as the road
network is uncongested.

The main difference of the Evans (1976) model and the extended model proposed in this
research is in the parameter estimation method, which consider the closeness of observed data

227
and modelled data in all steps, from the trip generation model to traffic assignment. The
Evans (1976) model had been extended by several authors to include mode split as well as trip
generation, for example the models developed by Florian and Nguyen (1978) and Safwat and
Magnanti (1988). So that, if the joint estimation of trip distribution model and trip generation
model done in this research produces better results, it may be inferred that the extended Evans
(1976) model developed in this research could be applied to integrate trip generation, trip
distribution, mode split and traffic assignment.

11.5 Freight Demand Model Calibration

11.5.1 Calibration of The Basic Direct Demand Model

The main advantage of the direct demand model is that it can be calibrated using aggregate
data, which are in many cases readily available. The data used to calibrate the basic direct
demand model are the result of the national origin destination survey of Indonesia undertaken
by the Ministry of Communications of Indonesia in 2001. The survey provides inter sub-
provinces aggregate freight demand in tonnes/year, where the data are not divided by
commodity (Ministry of Communications of Indonesia 2002). The external zones are also
excluded in the calibration of freight transport demand model. The method applied in
passenger transport demand model calibration is adopted.

The socio-economic data are obtained from the Central Statistics Bureau of Central Java
(2002), and the shortest travel time between zones estimated using Indonesian Highway
Capacity Manual and TrafikPlan as discussed above are applied to represent the inter sub-
province freight transport costs. Given the data condition, than the direct demand model is
developed only to estimate yearly freight distribution between sub-provinces in Central Java.

Socio-economic variables considered to affect freight demand are Gross Regional Domestic
Product (GRDP), population (Pop), number of household (Hous), GRDP of agricultural sector
(Agric), GRDP of industrial sector (Indus) and GRDP of trading sector (Trad). The GRDP
and the GRDP of agricultural sector, industrial sector and trading sector are all in million
Rupiahs. The 2001 socio-economic variables considered to affect freight demand are
presented in Table 11.3.

228
In order to apply the basic direct demand model, all socio-economic variables including the
inter sub-province freight data area transformed to their normal logarithmic values. Equation
11.4 is the inter sub-province freight demand model of Central Java estimated using the basic
direct demand model (stepwise regression tecimique is applied) where denotes travel time
between i andj, and other variables are as explained before.

mT.. = 0.599 +0.7481nGRDP1.9171nc,. (11.4)

(0.323) (11.361) (17.456)

Although all t values (in parentheses) are significant, the coefficient of determination (R2) of
0.322 for this model is quite low. This might be due to the data quality where of the 1190
origin destination pairs, there are 329 origin and destination pairs that have no freight flows at
all, i.e. the freight demand between these pairs is zero.

This might also due to aggregation bias as freight demand data are aggregated without
specifying commodity groups. Another likely factor responsible for the poor performance of
Equation 11.4 is that travel impedance needs to be defined more precisely using detailed
forms such as generalised cost instead of using travel time. The deficiencies of the basic direct
demand models (the simple gravity models), discussed previously in chapter 10, could also be
responsible for the low performance of Equation 11.4

229
 Table 11.3 The 2001 socio-economic variables and freight demand data

GRDP of GRDP of GRDP of Freight Freight

Sub-Province GRI)P Population Household Agriculture Industry Trade Production Attraction
(Million) (Million) (Million) (Million) (Tonne) (Tonne)
Cilacap 6846182 1613964 410656 742126 3343675 2229117 14576179 6306800
Banyumas 1040237 1460324 380784 260267 195565 147818 6854725 7021218
Purbalmgga 629866 788675 192256 194377 73568 110856 3954910 2395472
Banjarnegara 852467 838962 207488 317118 132047 105024 4450634 5385357
Kebumen 915370 1166604 288160 360564 86319 137855 4735535 3191486
Purworejo 707551 704063 191055 237313 53208 128420 4323553 3569856
Wonosobo 527635 739648 187264 253107 44585 97032 2723097 6086982
Magelang 1096202 1102359 284896 334999 222310 159278 4885715 7636490
Boyolali 935468 897207 238987 291305 163988 244064 5287809 5789761
Klaten 1247747 1109486 305504 230708 291598 336892 4151820 3436877
Sukoharjo 1157847 780946 207488 239443 301735 285409 4050695 2318152
Wonogiri 804087 967178 248772 386364 37953 91344 4567528 5052851
Karanganyar 1210085 761988 194304 242864 452693 212007 3246954 4372929
Sragen 712656 845320 227392 269242 122506 101340 6359579 3822778
Grobogan 741821 1271500 354752 340793 27670 154670 3825844 3668964
Blora 723135 813675 224019 328882 44690 124307 3789473 2313603
Rembang 524181 559523 145935 244688 28515 90998 2185304 4679432
Pati 969013 1154506 320736 433827 127328 147290 11950323 6511152
Kudus 3185798 709905 178528 105131 1915620 872272 7177037 10039795
Jepara 1037969 980443 256544 230429 282224 235827 4726911 6224576
Demak 769048 984741 253754 338381 88364 157501 6203006 9127323
Semarang 1082379 834314 219648 183355 451135 190607 18288219 18385334
Temanggung 728586 665470 167328 241453 118250 73660 2947987 3628301
Kendal 1594833 851504 223392 296639 716718 281169 3018218 8330021
Batang 737198 665426 161504 193441 217621 128862 2531027 4923537
Pekalongan 899546 807051 184880 147526 290014 190434 2671412 7879330
Pemalang 1124314 1271404 291040 371024 226999 250722 4747356 7120224
legal 952071 1391184 327584 252489 197269 229735 3874172 7356169
Brebes 1447844 1711364 425504 760118 147680 320842 4852891 3021078
MagelangCity 328162 116800 31008 10140 20674 22512 2411413 140426
Surakarta City 1353883 489900 132326 19631 338606 302457 11261843 15633170
Salatiga City 263645 155244 44326 13393 51938 47008 937632 3654391
Semarang City 5405239 1353047 359287 36756 1705894 1912914 21826130 11208076
Pekalongan
City 453338 263190 62208 45425 113108 92118 6109039 2575615
Tegal City 377702 236900 57134 38072 76787 85927 4670461 1366905

Source: Central Statistics Bureau of Central Java, (2002)

11.5.2 Calibration of The Improved Direct Demand Model

230
The data used to calibrate the improved direct demand model are similar those used to
calibrate the basic direct demand model discussed in the previous section. The first step is
developing a model to estimate utility of a destination zone viewed from an origin zone (Eu).

E.. = 177453.1 + 1.O44Agric1 0. (11.5)

(6.843) (6.329) (6.843) (5.572)

The R2 of Equation 10.9 is 0.063 and all t values (in parentheses) are significant. The R2 is
very low since the model incorporates variables of destination zones only. The and the
selected variables of origin zones are then used as inputs of Equation 10.6. The 'i/i is

maximised when a is equal to 15.3 and j3 is equal to 0.024.

Table 11.4 Coefficient of correlation between variables

7j Ggrijp Gpopuiation Gagricuiture Ginciustry Gtracie

1.000 0.686 0.724 0.724 0.634 0.649 0.577

Ggrdp 0.686 1.000 0.845 0.847 0.656 0.960 0.947

Gpopuiation 0.724 0.845 1.000 0.999 0.923 0.783 0.657

Ghousehold 0.724 0.847 0.999 1.000 0.919 0.785 0.660

Gagricuhure 0.634 0.656 0.923 0.919 1.000 0.599 0.441

0.649 0.960 0.783 0.785 0.599 1.000 0.896

Gtrade 0.577 0.657 0.660 0.441 0.896 1.0001

Equation 11.6 is the freight demand developed using the improved direct demand model.

=57480.276 + (0.319 x )+ (1.042 x Gpopuiatjon) (11.6)

(4.196) (6.026) (11.701)

The R2 of Equation 11.6 is 0.543. The t values are all significant. Equation 11.6 improves the
performance of the basic direct demand model (Equation 10.4) significantly (it improves the
R2 by 69%). Equation 11.6 does not increase the coefficient of determination only but also
increases the number of variables in the model. All variables have correct sign as expected
where GRDP and population variables all have positive sign.

231
11.5.3 Calibration of The Improved Direct Demand Model with Spatial
Structure Variables

In this research the competing destinations factor (CD) is defined as total travel time from
other destinations to destinationj, and intervening opportunities factor (JO) is defined as total
travel time from other destinations (exceptj) to origin i.

CD=>CkI (11.7)

and

(11.8)

Figure 11.7 and Figure 11.8 illustrate the basic idea of the competing destination model and
the intervening opportunities model applied in this research.

CU Ckf

...............

Figure 11.7 Competing destination model

Source: adapted from Guldman (1999)

232
 Cli

Figure 11.8 - Intervening opportunities model

Source: adapted from Guidman (1999)

The inclusion of CD and JO produces the final model of Central Java inter sub-province
freight demand as follows:

= 174787 + (0.353 x G popujation (48.906 x 10) (11.9)

(2.266) (6.549) (11.287) (3.059)

The R2 of Equation 10.16 is 0.548. The t values are all significant and all variables have
correct sign: Equation 10.16 improves the performance of Equation 10.10 by 1%. Equation
10.16 shows that spatial structure affects origin zone. The positive sign of JO explains that
competing effects are present at origin zone, where zone close to the others tend to produce
less freight transport. Spatial structure effects are not present at destination zones.

11.6 Evaluation of Central Java Road Network Planning

The passenger demand model and the freight demand model calibrated in the previous
sections are applied to evaluate the 2011 Central Java road network planning (Ministry of
Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia 2003).

The planning is intended to upgrade the main arterial roads to 4-lane divided road, started
from 2005 to 2011. Some roads are upgraded to 7 m undivided road. The upgraded roads are
on the main routes of Central Java road network.
233
The evaluation process is started with estimation of base year (2001) traffic volume. This is
done to see the base year performance of the network and to determine the path diversion
factor (0) and travel time variability factor (-y).

The path diversion factor (0) controls the probability that travellers will choose routes longer
than the minimum route for their journeys being modelled in the study area. The travel time
variability factor ('y) is used to define the spread of individual perceived link travel times
about observed travel time (Taylor 1992).

The performance of road network in future year is estimated in two conditions: before and
after road network improvements. Figure 11.9 is the road section that will be improved started
in the period 2005 to 2010.

Java Sea

Java

Legend:
Province Capital

o Other Cities
Ocean
Province Border
Sub-province Border
Prterial Road
Collector Road 1
= Collector Road 2
Collector Road 3
River
_ Upgraded to 4D lane

Figure 11.9 Central Java road network planning

Source: Ministry of Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia (2003)

234
11.6.1 Base Year Condition

The main requirement of assignment process using TrafikPlan is that the transport demand
data are in a single unit such as passenger car unit (PCU). So that, transforming the passenger
as well as freight demand data to passenger car unit is needed. After the transformation, the
passenger demand and freight demand can be combined, and the combined matrix will be the
input of traffic volume estimation using TrafikPlan.

Given the data form and conditions, several additional analyses and data are needed to be able
to do traffic assignment. The additional analysis and data are related to the mode split, vehicle
capacities and occupancy factors, passenger car unit (PCU) factors, and the daily and hourly
traffic distribution. The mode split in particular is an important part of traffic estimation. The
mode split analysis at least need transport cost data for each type of vehicle.

The IHCM (Sweroad 1997) classifies traffic on intercity roads into five classes: light vehicle
(LV), medium to heavy vehicle (MHV), large bus (LB), large truck (LT), and motorcycle
(MC). Non-motorised vehicles are considered as not a part of traffic volume, but they are
treated as an element of roadside friction.

The LV is all vehicles with two axles and the axle spacing is 2 to 3 m, this includes passenger
car, microbus, pickup and small truck. The MIIV is all vehicles with two axles and the axle
spacing is 3.5 to 5 m. The LB is all buses with two or three axles and the axle spacing is 5 to 6
m. The LT is all trucks with three axles. The MC is all motorised vehicle with two or three
wheels. This classification is used as the basis of mode split. Passenger matrix is split into
LV, LB and MC, and freight matrix is split into MHV and LT.

Mode split modelling is not undertaken in this application, as the data to estimate generalised
costs of passenger transport and freight transport (e.g. value of time, freight transport tariff,
etc.) are not available. The percentages of vehicle in average daily traffic are used to split the
passenger and freight matrices. The percentages of LV, MHV, LB, LT and MC in average
daily traffic on the Central Java intercity road network are 18.73, 10.23, 20.96, 6.86, and
12.40. The percentage of non-motorised vehicle is relatively high, namely 30.82 per cent
(Ministry of Communications of Indonesia 1997).

235
For the passenger transport, the occupancy factors of LB and LV are both 0.76 (The Ministry
of Communications of Indonesia 1997), and it is assumed that the capacity of LB and LV are
55 passengers and 8 passengers. It is common in Indonesia that passenger cars are modified
and operated as public transport with capacity varies between 10 to 14 passengers: The
occupancy factor and capacity of MC are assumed to be 0.75 and 2. It is also common in
Indonesia that MC is operated as public transport.

For the freight transport, the occupancy factors of MHV and LT are both assumed to be 0.95.
This assumption is based on the Hine, Ebden and Swan (1997) study in comparing freight
transport operations in Tanzania and Indonesia. They found that only small proportion (5 per
cent) of the sample of the trucks were empty. They also found that overloaded trucks were
much more likely to occur in Indonesia compared to Tanzania. The capacity of MHV and LT
are 6.4 and 14.9 tonnes respectively (Hine, Ebden & Swan 1997).

Based on the ]IHCM, the PCU factors for LV, MHV, LB, LT and MC are varied for each road
section, depending on road alignment, traffic flow level, and lane width. The variation of the
PCU factors can be applied to transform classified traffic count data to a single unit, so that
volume capacity ratio analysis, for instance, can be done (Sweroad 1997).

In traffic assignment model, the PCU factors must be determined first, regardless road
conditions and traffic flow level, as the unit used in origin destination data are the number of
passenger and the volume of freight. The PCU factors of 1, 1.5, 1.6, 2.5, and 0.7 are adopted
for LV, MHV, LB, LT and MC respectively. The adoption of the PCU factors are based on
assumption that road alignment is generally flat, the hourly traffic volume is between 1350 to
1900 vehicle per hour and road width is between 6 to 8 m.

The IHCM (Sweroad 1997) suggested a value of 0.11 should be applied as percentage of
hourly flow from annual average daily traffic (AADT). The value of 0.11 is considered too
high compared to the value given in the HDM-4 document (Beimet and Paterson 2000, p.
170). The HDM-4 document reported percentage of hourly flow from annual average daily
traffic (AADT) based on study undertaken in India as presented in Table 11.5.

236
 Table 11.5 Hourly distributions based on Indian data

Motorised Traffic
Flow Band Hourly Flow as Percentage of Length of Year at that Hourly Flow
AADT
Bin Range Mean Hours Days
1 02.5 1.59 2575 107.3
2 2.5 6.5 4.53 4805 200.2
3 6.58.5 7.14 1114 46.4
4 8.5 10.5 9.41 216 9.0
5 >10.5 12.92 50 2.1

Source: Bennet and Paterson 2000, P. 170

The percentage of more than 10.5 per cent only occurred 2 days in a year, so that the use a
value of 0.11 could overestimate hourly traffic flow. This research considers applying a more
moderate value as the percentage of hourly flow from AADT, namely 7.14 per cent. The
hourly transport demand matrix of each vehicle type is obtained by dividing each cell of the
yearly matrix by 365 and then multiplied it with 0.07 14.

The step by step process to transform the passenger and freight demand data to passenger car
unit may be summarised as follows: (1) split the yearly passenger demand and freight demand
matrices into several matrices based on mode used; (2) divide each cell in the matrices by
vehicle capacities and then divide with occupancy factors to obtain matrices in vehicle unit;
(3) multiply each cell in the matrices with passenger car unit; (4) combine all matrices into a
single matrix in passenger car unit; and (5) divide each cell in the yearly vehicle matrices by
365 and multiply with the percentage of hourly flow from AADT.

To calibrate the path diversion factor (0) and the travel time variability factor (y), the AADT
data from the Directorate General of Land Transport of Indonesia (DGLT 2004) are used. The
data covers 17 sections of two main routes of Central Java, namely the North Coast route and
the Centre route. The data were used in Asian Highway Network planning, so that the data are
assumed to be reliable.

237
The best fit between observed traffic flows and modelled traffic flows are achieved when the
default values of the path diversion factor (0) and the travel time variability factor (-y) are
applied. The default value of the path diversion factor (0) is 10 and the default value of the
travel time variability factor (y) is 0. This shows that travellers generally choose minimum
routes in their journeys. This is reasonable as the travel time differences between taking
alternative routes and the shortest routes are significant. Furthermore, congestion is generally
not present in the study area.

The coefficient of correlation between observed flows and modelled flows is 0.64. To
measure wether there is linear association between observed flows and modelled flows, then t
test is conducted using Equation 11.10 where r denotes coefficient of correlation and n
denotes the number of sample. The hypothesis of no linear association between two variables
is rejected when the calculated t value is higher than t value of t-distribution table (Silver
1997).

r
(11.10)
ij(1 _r2)/(n -2)

The calculated t value is 3.201 and the t value of t-distribution table is 2.9467 (0.5 per cent
significant level). It can be concluded that linear association between observed flows and
modelled flows is accepted. Table 11.6 presents the observed hourly traffic flow and the
modelled traffic flow. The observed traffic flow data are also multiplied with the percentage
of hourly flow from AADT of 7.14 per cent.

Table 11.6 Observed and modelled traffic volume

Link Observed Traffic Modelled Traffic
No
Number Volume (pcu!hour) Volume (pculhour)
1 17-18 449 315
2 18-19 497 321
3 19-20 357 423
4 20-21 455 791
5 21-22 597 926
6 22-23 472 1030
7 24-25 781 1061
8 25-26 1000 1145
9 26-40 1859 1498
10 40-50 984 1089
11 56-57 1022 946
12 57-115 938 793
13 85-87 860 708
14 87-89 1367 950
15 89-90 954 426
238
 16 60-90 835 242
17 60-61 466 326

Given the data conditions and number of assumptions that have to be made, the modelled
flow is relatively close to the observed flow. The traffic flow tends to be higher on links
connecting to the capital city of Central Java (Semarang). Those links are link 25-26 and 26-
40. Link 26-40 and link 87-89 could be considered as urban roads since they are located in the
middle of city.

Overall, the traffic flows on the main arterial roads (especially the North Coast route and the
Central route) are higher then the traffic flows on the other roads. Figure 11.10 shows the
modelled hourly traffic flows on the Central Java road network.

Figure 11.11 shows volume to capacity (V/C) ratio on the Central Java road network. The
V/C ratio are all still under the maximum tolerable value. Based on the IHCM, the maximum
tolerable value of V/C ratio is 0.8. The V/C ratio of centroid links are all more than 1.

ITrafikPlan Interactive Network Display for C :\nydocWl\jateng\jarjal1

FUJUS

0.0 0.5
Modelled
Data

Figure 11.10 The 2001 modelled traffic flows

239
rftafikplan Interactive Network for c :\mijdocul\jaterig\jarjal1

FLOW /

0.0 0.2
Model led
Data

Figure 11.11 Volume capacity ratio from modelled flow

11.6.2 The 2011 Conditions

The first step in forecasting future transport demand is forecasting socio-economic variables
affecting transport demand, which has been determined in the model calibration step.

For the passenger transport demand model, the city population and rural population have been
found to affect trip production and trip attraction. It is assumed that the growth of city
population and rural population are similar. There are no data on urbanisation growth to be
able to forecast city population differently. The growths of city population and rural
population are therefore equal to the growth of total population, which is 0.95 per cent per
year (Central Statistics Bureau of Central Java 2002).

For the freight transport demand model, socio-economic variables have been found to affect
freight demand are: gross domestic regional product (GRDP), GRDP of agricultural sector,
GRDP of industrial sector, and population. The growth of those socio-economic variables (in
240
per cent per year) is: 3.33, 1.69, 3.21, and 0.95 (Central Statistics Bureau of Central Java
2002).

The mode split factors and other factors applied in the base year estimation are applied in
forecasting the 2011 transport demand. So that there is no changes in mode split between base
year condition and future year condition.

There are three scenarios analysed in year 201 1: (1) condition before road network
improvements; (2) condition after road network improvements, but the improvements are not
taken into account in trip generation model; (3) condition after road network improvements
and the improvements are not taken into account in trip generation model.

1. Before road network improvements.

The road network performance at year 2011 before road network improvements are presented
in Figure 11.12 and Figure 11.13. The traffic volume on link 26-40, 40-50, and 50-56 increase
significantly. They increase from 1000-1500 vehicles per hour range to higher than 2000
vehicles per hour range.

The traffic flows on links 22-23, 23-24, and 24-25 also reach the 1500-2000 vehicles per hour
range. Some collector roads (links 64-120, 65-120, 65-66, 55-66, 55-67, 67-69, 102-12 1, 78-
121, and 78-80) reach 500-1000 vehicles per hour range.

241
ITraf ikP lan Interactive Network D isp atj for
1 c : \mydocu'l\jateiig\jarja 11
FLOUS

[JiL5 1.0
0.0 0.5
Modelled
Data

Figure 11.12 The 2011 traffic flows (no network improvements)

In term of V/C ratio, some links have reached very high levels. The V/C ratio on links 23-24
and 50-56 are in the range of 0.5-0.8. Because those links are on main route of Java, their
condition could have significant impacts on the performance of Java road network. At holiday
sessions where traffic increase significantly, the condition could be even worse.

The road geometry of link 23-24 is winding and severely undulating, so that it would be hard
to resolve if congestion occurred on that link.

Given the estimated network condition at the year of 2011, then the planning of the Ministry
of Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia to upgrade the main arterial roads to 4-
lane divided road is appropriate, in terms of reducing the V/C ratios.

242
ITraf ikP 1 an Interactive Network D isp lay for c \nydocwl\jaterig\jarja 11
FLOW /
CI1PI1CITY

j.

0.0 0.2
Modelled
Data

Figure 11.13 The 2011 v/c ratio (no network improvements)

2. After road network improvements (improvements are not taken into account in trip
generation model).

It is assumed that transport demand is similar to the condition before road network
improvement, or in other words, the effects of the change of transport costs are not taken into
account. Thus there is no induced traffic.

Based on this assumption, there are significant improvements of road network performance
after road network planning is implemented. The V/C ratio of some roads is reduced to the
range of 0.2-0.5. The V/C ratio of unimproved links remains constant, for example the V/C
ratio of links 55-67, 67-69, 99-100, 100-101, and 101-102 are still in the range of 0.2-05
(similar to those in Figure 11.13). The V/C ratio of the scenario is presented in Figure 11.4.

243
[TrafikPlan Interactive Network Display for c :\mydocWl\jateng\jarjal1
FLOW /
cnpncITy

0.0 0.2
Mode Iled
Data

Figure 11.14 The 2011 v/c ratio (network improvements are not taken into account)

3. After road network improvements (improvements are taken into account in trip generation
model).

This scenario takes into account the effects of travel time changes (because of network
improvement) on travel demand. The shortest travel times between pair of zones are
determined from the new network. These new shortest travel times are then incorporated in
the trip generation model as well as trip distribution model for passenger transport demand
model and also incorporated in the improved direct demand model for freight demand
forecasting.

The link V/C ratios in this scenario is higher than the previous scenario. Some links reach the
range of 0.2-0.5. The improvemnts on the main routes also increases traffic flows on
unimproved links such as links 97-99, 65-66, and 55-66. This indicates that there are induced
traffic and proofs that the model is elastic.

244
The results of this scenario could be used to suggest that improvements of collector roads as
well as links 97-99, 99-100, 100-101, and 1001-102 should be considered. This could offer
alternatives to traveller in taking their journey and reduce traffic on main routes. The
improvements of collector roads could also support the development of sub-province along
those roads. It seems that the focus of road improvements are for the main route only. Figure
11.15 shows the network condition when travel time changes are taken into account.

ITrafikPlan Interactive Network Display -For c

FLOW /

I
Ilodel led
Data

Figure 11.15 The 2011 v/c ratio (network improvements are taken into account)

TrafikPlan is able to generate lists of overall travel statistics for the study network. Table 11.7
is the summary of travel statistics for Central Java road network based on base year condition
and the three scenarios.

245
 Table 11.7 Summary of travel statistics
Vehicle-Km ol Vehicle-Hours ot Vehicle-Hours of
Travel Travel Delay
Collector Road 18732 541
Base Year Arterial Road 46664 1741 65
Total 65396 2282 65
2011 Collector Road 35435 1093
Scenario 1 Arterial Road 70781 2765 221
Total 106216 3858 221

2011 Collector Road 33400 969

Scenario 2 Arterial Road 72815 2674 81
Total 106216 3643 81
2011 Collector Road 40373 1177
Scenario 3 Arterial Road 86414 3189 132
Total 126787 4366 132

The delays mainly occurred on arterial roads. It might be because shortest routes are generally
via arterial roads. Compared to the base year condition, the performance of network under
scenario 1 is much worse, the total vehicle-hours delay on arterial roads are more than three
times those of the base case.

After planning implementations, the road network performance is improved based on both
scenario 2 and 3. All the summary statistics of scenario 3 are higher than scenario 2, this is
again showing that the model is elastic, therefore suitable to be applied for road network
planning.

Scenario 3 has higher vehicle-km of travel and vehicle-hours of travel compared to scenario 1,
but the vehicle-hours of delay are lower. This could be used to justify that the planning is
acceptable from mobility point of view.

11.7 Summary

The application of the passenger travel demand developed in chapter 9 and the freight demand
developed in chapter 10 may be summarised as follows:

The application of the transport demand models developed in chapter 9 and 10 improves
traditional models significantly.
. The application shows that two different aggregate transport demand models, the four-step
method and direct demand model, can be combined.
246
 The parameters estimation processes developed in chapter 9 and chapter 10 improve the
elasticity of the aggregate transport demand model.
TrafikPlan, which was originally developed for dense network studies, can be applied for
regional network studies as well.
The main problems of transport demand modelling in developing countries are data
reliability and availability.
The Central Java road network planning undertaken by the Ministry of Regional
Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia is acceptable (see Section 11.6.2).

247
 CHAPTER TWELVE

12 DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORT DEMAND

MODEL USING TRAFFIC COUNT DATA

12.1 Introduction

The road network planning needs a transport demand model that can take into account the
effect of changes in transport costs on travel demand. The passenger demand model and
freight demand model presented in chapter nine and chapter ten are often inapplicable in
developing countries as they are considered data hungry and costly.

The review of the unconventional transport demand models presented in chapter seven
concluded that the structured traffic count based models have potential to be applied for road
network planning in developing countries, as they do not need origin destination data and can
take into account the effects of road network changes on link traffic volumes. Furthermore,
they are considered easier for the public and decision maker to understand. This could
improve public and decision maker confidence in using the models and, in turn, increase the
usability of the models.

This chapter presents the development of a structured traffic count based model. The model is
then applied to estimate traffic volumes on a main route of Central Java road network.

12.2 Improving The Structured Traffic Count Based Models

The main principle of the structured traffic count based models is that traffic flows on links of
a particular road network are proportional to the total of socio-economic interaction between
zones that use those links. The main principle may be represented using Figure 12.1, traffic
volume on link a (Va) is proportional to total socio-economic interaction between origin zones
(1 and 2) and destination zones (3 and 4) assigned to link a (Z13, Z14, Z23, Z24).

248
 Va ZJ3 +Z

Figure 12.1 Basic Principle of Structured Approaches

The main steps of the structured traffic count based approach are the socio-economic
interaction model and trip assignment model. The early developments of the structured traffic
count based model were considered simple. The socio-economic interaction between zones
was assumed to follow a simple gravity model where socio-economic interaction between a
pair of zone is a result of multiplication of socio-economic variable of origin zone with socio-
economic variable of destination zone divided by transport costs between those two zones. It
was then realised that the use of the simple gravity model has the main deficiency that if each
origin variable and destination variable are doubled then the number of socio-economic
interactions between the zone pair would quadruple whereas it should be double as well (see
chapter 7).

This deficiency is overcame by using the conventional gravity model in which production and
attraction balancing factors are added. The conventional gravity model may be estimated
using a combined gravity-opportunity model. The application of a combined gravity
opportunity model was considered to be more time consuming and more complicated than the
pure gravity model whereas the results were only slightly better (Tamin & Willumsen 1989).

As discussed in chapter 7, the deficiency might be solved by modifying the simple gravity
model to trip interchange index such as Equation 7.7 (Khisty & Rahi 1990). The trip
interchange index between origin zone I and destination zone j developed by Khisty and
Alzahrani (as cited in Khisty & Rahi 1990) could be interpreted as the probability that worker
residing at I will go to destinationj.

The trip interchange index may be appropriate for urban study where the purpose of trips is
most likely work. For inter-urban study, the trip interchange index may be inappropriate as
there could be several purposes of trips such as commercial, recreational, etc.

249
This research extends the trip interchange index to a more general form of model called socio-
economic interaction probability so that it could be applied both in urban and inter-urban
studies. It is assumed that transport demand in a particular study area is proportional to socio-
economic interactions between zones in the study area. For instance population of origin
zones interacts with level of income of people at destination zones or vice versa, gross
regional domestic product of origin zones interact with density of destination zones or vice
versa, and so on.

The socio-economic interaction probability matrix may be formed using Equation 12.1, where
represents the probability of interaction between I andj affected by origin zone variable k

and destination zone variable q, SE," is socio-economic variable k of origin zone I, SEJ is
socio-economic variable q of destination zone j (note: q can be equal to k), is transport

costs between I andj, and is transport costs parameter for variable kq.

SEq
z" =SE' (12.1)

It is possible to have several socio-economic interaction probability matrices in a study area

and different values of for each socio-economic interaction probability matrix. In other
words, it is possible to have several V,7' (assigned variable k and variable q interaction
probability matrix) in a study area. Traffic on link a may be derived using Equation 12.2,
where is proportion of socio-economic interaction (origin zone variable k and destination

variable q) between I andj passing through link a.

Va (12.2)

The may be estimated using linear regression. It is assumed that = Va + where

is an error term (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994).

(12.3)

250
To reduce the possibility of having closely correlated independent variables, then only socio-
economic interaction matrices with similar variables of origin zones should be included in the
model estimation. For example, only interaction between population of origin zones and other
variables of destination zones are included in the model development. Although a condition
that is ensured, but it will be possible that Va'2 correlates highly with V21

The overall steps of the structured based approach proposed in this research are as follow:

1. Obtain base year traffic volume data, socio-economic data and road network data.
2. Estimate base year transport costs between zones.
3. Develop socio-economic interaction probability matrices using all possible pairs of
variables and a determined initial value of f3.
4. Assign each socio-economic interaction probability matrix to the network using all-or-
nothing assignment, change the value of iteratively until the highest correlation
coefficient between observed traffic volumes and total socio-economic interaction

assigned to link a is reached.

5. Develop the transport demand model using linear regression technique where is the
dependent variable and all are the independent variables.

Figure 12.1 gives the flowchart of the model estimation process.

251
 Record the Socio-
Economic Interaction
Probability Matrix

Figure 12.2 Algorithm for Model Development

252
The future traffic volumes can be estimated using the following steps:

1. Estimate future values of socio-economic variables included in the estimated model.

2. Obtain the horizon year or future road network data.
3. Estimate future values of transport costs.
4. Develop future socio-economic interaction probability matrices using estimated in the
model development.
5. Assign the socio-economic interaction probability matrices to the network.
6. Insert the future values of Va" in the developed regression equation.

Figure 12.2 shows the future or horizon year traffic volumes estimation process.

Horizon Year
Socio-Economic 0 Develop Horizon Year
Variables SocioEconomic Interaction
Probability Matrices
(using the values from
Horizon Year model estimation process)
Transport Costs
Data

Horizon Year Assign to the

Road Network Road Network
Data

Insert the assigned Socio-Economic

Interaction Probability Matrices to
the Traffic Volumes Estimation
Model

Estimated Horizon Year Traffic

Volumes

Figure 12.3 Algorithm for Traffic Volumes Estimation

253
12.3 Model Application

12.3.1 The Study Area and The Data

The improved model is applied to estimate traffic volumes on two main routes of Central
Java, namely the North Coast route and the Centre route. The North Coast route plays a
significant role in the Java road network. The role of the Centre route is no less than the North
Coast route; it is one of main arterial routes in Central Java and an alternative route for
travellers using Java road network. These two routes are parts of the Asian Highway Network
in Indonesia, running from Banda Aceh in Sumatra to Denpasar in Bali.

Figure 12.4 North Coast Route and Central Route

Source: adapted from Ministry of Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia (2004)

The other reasons of choosing these two routes as the study area of the improved model are:
(1) the traffic volumes data are available, and (2) the main aim of the improvement of the
structured traffic count based model done in this research is to reduce the deficiency of the
simple gravity model, so that the results of applying the improved model are all reflecting the

254
socio-economic interaction probability matrix and the estimation procedure only. There is no
need to assume other modelling steps such as route choice since there is only single route.

There are two sources of data on the road inventory and traffic volumes, they are the
UNESCAP (2004) and the Directorate General of Land Transport of Indonesia (DGLT 2004).
Although the traffic volume (Annual Average Daily Traffic/AADT) data form both sources
are all for the year of 2002, the traffic volume data are different in which the data form the
UNESCAP are higher. Furthermore, the number of road sections are also different in which
the DGLT divided the routes into a more detailed road sections (see Table 12.1). As the data
from the DGLT are more detail, which means there are more points (sections) for model
estimation, then the DGLT data are chosen to calibrate the improved model.

Table 12.1 Traffic Volumes Data

No Road Section AADT 2002 AADT 2002

Length (m) (the DGLT) (the UNESCAP)
1West Java Border-Brebes 17.78 6294 18764
2 Brebes-Tegal 8.79 6963 19146
3 Tegal-Pemalang 26.10 4994 8770
4 Pemalang-Pekalongan 28.65 6379 13576
5 Pekalongan-Pekalongan City 3.05 8357
6 PekalonganCity-Batang 5.01 6608 13956
7 Batang-Kendal 62.16 10945 15622
8 Kendal-Semarang 11.48 13999 16389
9 Semarang-Ungaran 14.75 26040 43863
10 Ungaran-Bawen 16.90 13781
11 Bawen-Salatiga 9.59 14318
12 Salatiga-Boyolali 24.95 13133 18936
13 Boyolali-Kartosuro 15.41 12042 15324
14 Kartosuro-Surakarta 5.52 19147 20185
15 Surakarta-Palur 1.41 13359 30420
16 Palur-Sragen 24.41 11689
17 Sragen-East Java Border 16.12 6526 7895

Source: the DGLT (2004) and the UNESCAP (2004)

There are 13 capital cities of sub-provinces along these two routes including the capital city of
Central Java province (Semarang). These cities start from Brebes in the west to Sragen in the
East. Overall, these two routes are 292.08 km long and divided into 17 road sections. The
road sections are actual roads connecting the two cities, as shown in Figure 12.5.

255
 / #9

Legend:

L] Province Capital

Sub-Province Capital

0 Other Cities 40
External Zone

Figure 12.5 The Road Sections

The study area is divided into 13 internal zones and 10 external zones. The external zones
within Central Java are the closest sub-provinces to the sub-provinces included in the internal
zones. The capital cities of the sub-provinces considered as the external zones are the external
zones centroid and used in determining travel time.

The external zones outside Central Java are West Java and Jakarta in the west and East Java
and Bali in the east. Those four provinces, beside Central Java, are the main generator of
traffic in Java road network. The zone centroids are Bandung, Jakarta, Surabaya and
Denpasar. It is most likely that those four cities are the origins and destinations of travellers
from and to those four provinces. Table 12.2 shows the socio-economic data of sub-provinces
and provinces considered to affect transport demand in Java.

256
 Table 12.2 The 2001 Socio-Economic Data Considered in the Model

. GDRP at current price Income at current price City

No Zone Population . . .

(m million Rupiahs) (m million Rupiahs) Density

1 Jakarta 8347083 188036000 30184176 12635
2 West Java (Bandung) 40823400 181630000 5215431 1033
3 Brebes 1711364 3759435 2201115 1767
4 legal, Kodya 236900 948946 3941426 8609
S legal 1391184 2387368 1717256 4342
6 Pemalang 1271404 2733756 2153020 2600
7 Pekalongan 807051 2806044 3480002 2947
8 Pekalongan City 263190 1506322 5743839 7213
9 Batang 665426 2009244 3019231 3020
10 Kendal 851504 4268179 4844560 1801
11 SemarangCity 1353047 15097151 11419483 3610
12 Demak 709905 9373963 13185772 9356
13 Semarang 834314 3146855 3762678 1411
14 Magelang City 116800 836824 7222529 6749
15 Salatiga City 155244 669699 4615402 1937
16 Boyolali 897207 2972853 3213134 2211
17 Kiaten 1109486 3352245 3013173 3616
18 Surakarta City 489900 3321686 6766866 11734
19 Sukoharjo 780949 2878710 3643535 1772
20 Karanganyar 761988 2812235 3497670 1541
21 Sragen 845320 1915756 2258648 2358
22 East Java (Surabaya) 34465998 177274000 5215431 726
23 Bali (Denpasar) 3090497 16510000 1691877 559

Source: The Central Statistics Bureau of Central Java (2002) and The Central Statistics
Bureau of Indonesia (2004)

Travel time represents the costs of travel between zones along the route. The travel time data
estimated in chapter 11 are used. The determination of travel times for travelling to and from
Jakarta, Bandung, Surabaya and Denpasar are based on the distances of those four cities from
the closest cities along the two routes and average travel speed along those two routes.

12.3.2 Model Calibration

To compare the improved model with the simple gravity model, first we develop a model
using the simple gravity model such as Equation 7.2 in chapter 7.

257
 PA.
(12.4)

It is assumed that population is the main factor affecting trip production and other variables
(GRDP, income, and city density) including population of destination zones are affecting trip
attraction. Table 12.3 is the assigned Equation 12.4 to the network where P1 is population of
origin zone and 4, represents destination zone variables.

Table 12.3 The Assigned Simple Gravity Model

No Road Section Population GRDP Income (PT) City Density

(PP) (PG) (PC)
1 West Java Border-Brebes 1.4E+10 7.89E+l0 2.75E+10 23351422
2 Brebes-Tegal 2.28E+1 0 9.8E+10 5.6 1E+10 67007237
3 Tegal-Pemalang 2.O1E+10 9.24E+10 5.52E+10 58259530
4 Pemalang-Pekalongan 1.87E+10 9.18E+10 6.04E+10 56351612
5 Pekalongan-Pekalongan City 2.07E+10 1.02E+11 8.39E+10 78895676
6 Pekalongan City-Batang 2.O1E+10 1E+1 1 7.85E+10 71303254
7 Batang-Kendal 1.6E+10 8.75E+10 5.56E+10 43674158
8 Kendal-Semarang 1 .84E+10 1 .07E+1 1 7.68E+10 51600565
9 Semarang-Ungaran 2.18E+10 1.31E+11 1.05E+11 63986610
10 Ungaran-Bawen 1.67E+10 9.25E+10 7.33E+10 52515299
11 Bawen-Salatiga 1.67E+10 9.19E+10 7.2E+10 51491881
12 Salatiga-Boyolali 1 .63E+ 10 8.92E+1 0 6.47E+1 0 48604071
13 Boyolali-Kartosuro 1 .78E+1 0 9.1 5E+10 6.67E+10 56031981
14 Kartosuro-Surakarta 1.83E+10 9.22E+10 6.72E+10 61358511
15 Surakarta-Palur 2.38E+10 1.2E+1 1 1 .18E+1 1 1.37E+08
16 Palur-Sragen 1 .45E+10 7.24E+10 3 .82E+1 0 34097027
17 Sragen-EastJavaBorder l.13E+10 6.12E+10 2.19E+10 17278352
Coefficient of Correlation . 0.198 0.555 0.561 0.185

The highest coefficient of correlation between traffic volumes and assigned simple gravity
model is achieved when simple gravity model consists of populations of origin zone and
income of destination zone, which is 0.561.

Having the values of assigned simple gravity models, we can estimate the model using
regression technique. Equation 12.5 is the estimated model. It might be interpreted that
population affect trip production while income and city density affect trip attraction.

2611.181+(3.224x 107)PI(2.]7x 1O4)PC (12.5)

(1.008) (4.62) (3.329)

wher P1 is income and PC is city density.

258
The R2 of Equation 12.5 is equal to 0.617, and all t values (in parenthesis) show that the
independent variables are significant.

The assumption that population is the main determinant of trip production and the other three
variables including population of destination are the determinants of trip attraction is also
applied to calibrate the improved model. Table 12.4 is the assigned socio-economic
interaction probability matrices (Equation 12.1) to the network.

Table 12.4 The results of assignment based on the simple gravity model

No Road Section Population GRDP Income (PT) City Density

(PP) (PG) (PC)
1 West Java Border-Brebes 10632.15 40.29 60.62 36075.43
2 Brebes-Tegal 77349.37 12703.89 67847.91 349048.55
3 Tegal-Pemalang 84344.44 12058.87 73985.69 513604.95
4 Pemalang-Pekalongan 79878.95 12044.88 84436.78 538062.33
5 Pekalongan-Pekalongan City 80064.07 14566.03 114534.36 594619.78
6 PekalonganCity-Batang 77221.60 13661.88 98494.34 551166.68
7 Batang-Kendal 63472.07 9662.23 61005.58 464248.62
8 Kendal-Semarang 79468.30 22225.50 126585.96 534887.40
9 Semarang-Ungaran 92012.60 32021.35 193081.40 635049.69
10 Ungaran-Bawen 74573.28 16418.87 129234.78 590201.49
11 Bawen-Salatiga 74289.39 16118.02 126624.78 577589.41
12 Salatiga-Boyolali 72320.61 14537.59 106500.58 554743.38
13 Boyolali-Kartosuro 78666.84 16481.14 115625.38 578053.67
14 Kartosuro-Surakarta 79668.90 18126.54 124214.61 590551.84
15 Surakarta-Palur 62387.94 16023.39 112670.05 377831.52
16 Palur-Sragen 37201.20 7018.14 46490.95 208860.70
17 Sragen-East Java Border 5953.47 23.82 56.43 26844.46
/3 -0.02 -0.035 -0.035 -0.018
Coefficient of Correlation 0.376 0.774 0.752 0.457

The improved model increases the coefficient of correlations and the population-GRDP
interaction probability matrix has the highest coefficient correlation. Having all assigned
socio-economic interaction probability matrices, finally we can estimate the transport demand
model as follow:

= 8870.683+ 1.049PG 0.1 78PP (12.6)

(4.858) (7.101) (4.008)

The R2 of Equation 12.6 is equal to 0.813, and all t values (in parenthesis) show that the
independent variables are significant. Equation 12.6 improves the performance of the simple
gravity model significantly. It might also have more behavioural interpretation in which

259
people in populated areas tend to go to economically better area indicated by high level of
GRDP. On the other hand two populated areas tend to reduce travel demand.

The calibration results indicate that the improved model has both theoretical and practical
advantages over the simple gravity model. Overall, the improved model developed in this
research is valid to be used to estimate traffic volumes on road sections in the Central Java
road network.

This model is suitable for road network planning in developing countries. It is not data hungry
and can take into account the effect of road network changes.

The results of other combinations of factors affecting trip production and trip attraction are
less than Equation 12.6, although they are much better than the simple gravity model. The
coefficient of determination of combinations between city density and other variables is
0.80 1, the coefficient of determination of combinations between GRDP and other variables is
0.733, and the coefficient of determination of combinations between income and other
variables is also 0.733.

The calibration shows that two combinations of variables, first between k as origin variable
and q as destination variable, and between q as origin variable and k as destination variable
produce different socio-economic interaction probability matrices. But, when both matrices
are assigned to the network, the correlate highly (see Table 12.5). It can be seen that
correlation coefficients between PC and CP, between GP and PG, and so on are unity. So that
the use of single variable of origin zone combined with other variables of destination zone is
justified.

260
 Table 12.5 Correlation Coefficients Between Assigned Matrices

PP PG P1 PC GP GG GI GC IP IG 11 IC CP CG CI CC
PP 1.000
PG 0.824 1.000
Pt 0.836 0.968 1.000
PC 0.946 0.811 0.877 1.000
GP 0.825 1.000 0.968 0.811 1.000
GG 0.643 0.949 0.908 0.685 0.948 1.000
GI 0.617 0.924 0.922 0.688 0.923 0.976 1.000
GC 0.821 0.934 0.984 0.892 0.934 0.882 0.910 1.000
IP 0.845 0.965 1.000 0.888 0.965 0.902 0.915 0.985 1.000
IG 0.625 0.928 0.927 0.694 0.927 0.977 1.000 0.915 0.920 1.000
II 0.614 0.888 0.926 0.717 0.887 0.935 0.986 0.930 0.921 0.986 1.000
IC 0.777 0.857 0.946 0.904 0.857 0.821 0.864 0.977 0.951 0.868 0.909 1.000
CP 0.948 0.812 0.877 1.000 0.812 0.685 0.687 0.891 0.889 0.693 0.715 0.902 1.000
CG 0.823 0.936 0.985 0.891 0.936 0.883 0.910 1.000 0.986 0.915 0.930 0.975 0.891 1.000
CI 0.773 0.864 0.952 0.897 0.864 0.828 0.872 0.980 0.955 0.876 0.916 1.000 0.895 0.979 1.000
CC 0.820 0.739 0.829 0.957 0.739 0.683 0.699 0.870 0.841 0.703 0.744 0.928 0.955 0.868 0.918 1.000
Note: P stands for for population, I for income, G for GRDP, and C for city density. PP means population affect
strip production and population also affects trip attraction, and so on.

12.4 Structured Approach for Congested Network

The form of the improved simple gravity model discussed above (Equation 12.1) is similar to
the form of multinomial logit model, and could be regarded as the production constraint
gravity model. The use of Equation 12.1 ensures that the iteration process will not change the
total assumed trip production (population, GRDP, etc.) of each origin zone.

If we have assumed trip attraction of each destination and ensured that the total of all trip
attraction is equal to the total of trip production, then we can develop a doubly constrained
gravity model. By modifying the method of successive average applied by Holm et al. (1976)
and discussed by Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994), we can combine the development of the
assumed doubly constrained gravity model and traffic assignment.

As this model is most likely applied in urban areas, then we could use a single combination of
variables representing working trip. The combination could be number of workers (W1)
residing at origin zones to represent trip production and number of jobs (E') available in
destination zones to represent trip attraction.

In order to have trip production of each zone (e.g. W1) as well as trip attraction of each zone
(e.g. that can be used as constraints, we may use Equation 12.7 (similar to Equation 9.12

261
discussed in chapter 9). First, the number ofjobs available in each zone is divided by the total
number of jobs in all zones; the result is then multiplied by the total number of workers in all
zones. This will ensure that total productions in the study area are equal to total attractions in
the study area Anderson (2002).

(12.7)

(12.8)
i I

Table 12.6 is an example of the calculation process with 4 zones, the final result is
W=

Zone No. of Worker (W1) No. of Job (E1) E1/total E1 W,

A 25 21 0.27 27.38
B 29 19 0.24 24.77
C 17 24 0.30 31.29
D 32 15 0.19 19.56
Total 103 79 1 103

Since Equation 12.8 can be satisfied, then a doubly constrained gravity model for socio-
economic interaction is possible (similar to Equation 6.11 to 6.13 discussed in chapter 6). The
next step is to insert the "assumed" doubly constrained gravity model to the successive
averages method to be able to capture congestion effect in the model estimation. The step-by-
step process may be as follow:

1. Set n=0, set transport costs parameter =-0. 1 calculate link costs based on free-flow travel
times (Fa = 0)
2. Find shortest route between zones using all-or-nothing assignment and current costs; set
n=n+1; calculate transport costs between zone

3. Calculate zone productions and attractions using Equation 12.7.

4. Solve a doubly constrained gravity model to obtain initial matrix }

262
5. Assign the matrix to the network based on the shortest route found in step 2 to derive
contribution of socio-economic interactions on links Va; prepare a set of observed link
flows

6. Develop regression equation with as dependent variable and Va as independent

variable; If the best R2 is achieved go to step 7; otherwise change /3 and go to step 4;
7. Record the coefficient of determination (R2), /3 and the estimated traffic flows as Va
8. Determine the current traffic flows using the method of successive averages, as gven by
Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994), p.308:

Fa" (12.9)

9. Calculate link costs based on the new flows Fi'. If the best R2 is achieved, stop; otherwise
go to step 2.

The result of this solution is not unique, but the use of the doubly constrained gravity model
will ensure that the assumed trip productions, the assumed trip attractions, and the assumed
total trip in the study area are constant during the iteration process. The use of the doubly
constrained gravity model will ensure the stability of the process. It is unlike the simple
gravity model where changes of the assumed trip productions, the assumed trip attractions,
and the assumed total trips in the study area happen in each iteration process.

The use of the coefficient of determination as the stopping rule could reflect the route choice
behaviour of traveller in the study area. The best R2 may be achieved before equilibrium
condition is achieved or even at the first iteration, it might reflect that the user equilibrium
assumption is not suitable for the study area.

12.5 Summary

This chapter presents the development of a transport demand model using traffic counts data.
Several points may be highlighted as follow:

263
 The applications of the traffic count based model using structured approach have often
used simple gravity model, which has several deficiencies.

The deficiencies may be overcome by modifying the simple gravity model to a

multinomial logit like model.

The model developed in this chapter improves the structure of the simple gravity model
and improves the parameter estimation method.

The improved model works much better than the simple gravity model when applied to
estimate traffic volumes on main routes of Central Java road network.

An extension of the model to be able to capture congestion is given; theoretically this is

suitable for urban area studies.

The model developed in this chapter is considered suitable for road network planning in
developing countries; it is cheap to use and can take into account the benefit and cost of
road network changes in the model.

264
 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

13 CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH

RECOMMENDATIONS

13.1 Conclusions of the Research

Chapter Two explores the link between transport planning, transport projects evaluation and
transport demand model. General conclusions from chapter 2 are:

1. The decision making process in the real world is very complex and probabilistic, even in
apparently simple situations. Planning is necessary to provide inputs to the decision-
making process. The structure of planning must be compatible with the prevailing
decision-making style. Because planning is applied in a constantly changing world, then
dynamic planning is needed. The dynamic process of planning has an outward looking
focus and is capable of adapting to current and future situations.
2. A transport system may be seen as a very complex and adaptive system. An internal
change of one element of transport system can affect both the transport system itself and
its external environments, and vice versa. The application of dynamic or continuous
planning is considered appropriate for transport planning, especially as the aim of
transport planning is now more focused on transport growth reduction and provide access
to community at the same time.
3. The structure of dynamic or continuous planning for transport system found in Ortuzar
and Willumsen (1994), Taylor, Young and Bonsall (1996) and Chambers and Taylor
(1999) indicated that modelling and evaluation form the gateway to the decision and
determine the quality of the decision.
4. Modelling is needed as simple representation of real world by which the behaviour of real
world can be simulated in order to understand the effects of any actions taken in the real
world. Evaluation is needed to compare both positive and negative impacts of any actions
or alternatives.
5. Evaluation in continuous transport planning requires combination of skills and applies
both quantitative and qualitative analyses. Much transport decision-making is more

265
 political (Banister 2001). Two main methods for transport projects evaluation are cost-
benefit analysis (CBA) and multicriteria analysis (MCA).
6. Modelling in transport planning is generally focused on demand modelling. Based on the
number of individuals represented in the model, transport demand models can be grouped
intoaggregate and disaggregate models (Ortuzar & Willumsen 1994). Transport
modelling can also be formulated into seven-level of hierarchy based on spatial
aggregation and time duration. The seven-level hierarchy consists of microscopic
simulation, macroscopic flow models, simulation models, dense network models, strategic
network models (medium resolution), strategic network models (low resolution), and
sketch planning models (Taylor et a!. 2004).

Chapter Three reviews the practice of evaluation system and transport demand model for
transportation projects in both developed and developing countries. The reviews can be
concluded as follows:

1. In developed countries, cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is commonly applied for transport

projects evaluation and criteria not expressed in monetary terms are evaluated separately.
Several countries apply multicriteria analysis (MCA) in evaluating transport project
alternatives.
2. The main problem in the application of MCA is in determining criteria weights; each
country has its own method to determine criteria weight.
3. Road project evaluation in developing countries using analytical method such as HDM-4
model applies the engineering-economic approach similar to CBA. Only direct benefits
and costs expressed in monetary terms are considered in the evaluation. MCA is suggested
as appropriate when non-monetised criteria are included in the evaluation.
4. Most developed countries reviewed apply the four-step method for modelling transport
demand. There are differences regarding induced demand assumption. The HDM-4 model
for road project evaluation in developing countries applies a simple arithmetic growth
mean method to forecast traffic.

Chapter Four explores theoretical and practical aspects of cost-benefit analysis applications
in transport project evaluation. The conclusions of this chapter are:

1. Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) analyses the impacts of alternative under consideration to

society in monetary values as far as possible in order to have net benefit measure. The net
benefit measure becomes the fundamental metric of the evaluation.

266
2. In terms of consumer surplus, the net benefit measure is derived by applying the
willingness to pay principle where consumer surplus of the improved road is subtracted
from the consumer surplus of the actual condition of the road. The CBA must be
estimated using commensurate perceived prices. In practice the willingness to pay
principle is hard to apply.
3. The applications of CBA need a transport demand model that can take into account the
phenomenon of induced travel.
4. The CBA has two main drawbacks: first is how to include factors that cannot be measured
in monetary values such as political preference, and second is related to the use of social
discount rate in developing countries where decreasing economic growth may happen.

Chapter Five explores theoretical and practical aspects of multicriteria analysis applications
in transport project evaluation. The conclusions of this chapter are:

1. Multicriteria analysis, also termed as multiple attribute decision making (MADM), is

generally applied in situations where decision makers have to select an optimum
alternative from a set of discrete alternatives based on several, usually conflicting, criteria
and criterion preferences.
2. There are many multicriteria analysis methods, which can be classified according to
information supplied by the decision makers, the cognitive processing level, type of data,
and number of decision makers involved in the process.
3. Amongst different multicritena analysis methods, there are certain common principles:
the existence of alternatives, multiple criteria, conflict among criteria, incommensurable
units, decision weights, decision matrix and criterion scores, aggregation functions, and
sensitivity analysis.
4. The use of multicriteria analysis in transport projects evaluation is considered for reasons
as follows: there is conflict of analysis as the impacts of transport projects can be viewed
from various perspectives, some impacts cannot be valued using monetary terms, and
political preferences often present in transport projects evaluation.
5. The simple additive weighting method (SAW) is considered to be suitable for aggregating
criteria in transport projects evaluation.
6. Problems often arise in the applications of multicriteria analysis for transport projects
evaluation with regard to criteria weights determination. Based on the experience of
France, it was considered as time consuming, wasteful of public resources and could only
indicate whether the outcomes were acceptable or not.

267
7. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been applied in transport projects evaluation
and it has highest rating of suitability for application in transport projects evaluation
compared to other methods. The AIHIP can be applied for both criteria weights
determination and criteria aggregation. The criteria aggregation of AHP is similar to SAW
method. The AHP has been modified in which it is related to normalisation process and
the judgment scale.
8. The application of AHP in developing countries will have to consider the degree of
transparency and accountability of the decision since decision makers could find difficulty
in understanding the decision process and backtracking their judgments.
9. There are some criticisms of multicriteria analysis applications. These might be
summarised into three points: the possibility of double counting, the inability to use it to
sum future and present effects, and the inability to apply it to compare projects of different
types (e.g. between building a road and building a hospital).

Chapter Six describes the four-step model. The conclusions of this chapter are:

1. The four-step model is typically applied using four sequential sub-models, namely trip
generation model, trip distribution model, mode split model, and traffic assignment
model. It provides a complete framework from study preparation to prediction of traffic
volume on links on the network and is useful to describe the transport demand modelling
process.
2. The criticisms of the four-step model are related to the assumption that characteristics of
people or goods at each zone can be aggregated. It is not well suited for planning where
the target of the policies is more specified and is unsuitable for estimating the impacts of
travel demand management measures. The aggregate four-step model cannot encompass
several important inputs for transport demand model such as characteristics of individual,
relations between individual regarding trips they made, and relations between the trip
making decisions of each individual. The four-step model is also criticised because of its
inelasticity; there is frequently no feedback from the lower steps to the higher steps, so
that changes on destination, mode, and network conditions are assumed to have no effects
on trip generation.
3. The criticisms may be eliminated once feedback is allowed and variations in the trip
purpose, person type, etc. are taken into account.
4. To allow feedback in the four-step model, combined models have been developed.
Researchers have attempted to combine steps of the four-step model into a single
estimation process. This includes a combined trip distribution and traffic assignment
268
 model, a combined trip distribution, mode split and traffic assignment model, and a
combined trip generation, trip distribution, mode split and traffic assignment model.
5. The combined models offer a stronger theoretical background than the traditional four-
step model, but their application in the real-world transport system is seemingly limited. It
might be due to the complexity of the combined models compared to the traditional four-
step model.
6. The use of the four-step model in transport project evaluation is justified, as the study
under consideration does not need a very detailed outcome such as behavioural change of
individual. Furthermore the planning horizon is generally between medium to long (i.e. 10
to 20 years).

Chapter Seven describes unconventional transport demand models and other approaches in
transport demand models. This chapter can be concluded as follows:

1. The unconventional models are transport demand models that can be estimated using
traffic data and socio-economic variables only. The unconventional models are developed
to reduce transport modelling costs and the complexity of conventional models such as the
four-step model. They could increase the confidence of the public and decision makers in
using the models, and in turn increase the usability of the models.
2. Transport demand models that can be classified into unconventional models are traffic
count based models, sketch planning models and elasticity-based models. Those models
can be applied to estimate traffic volumes.
3. The traffic count based models consist of two basic approaches: structured and
unstructured approaches. The structured approaches have potential to be applied in road
project evaluation in developing countries, they do not need a target matrix, can be
applied to estimate traffic volumes, and can take into account the effects of road
conditions on transport demand.
4. The elasticity-based model may be applied when the effects of road network changes on
transport demand is assumed to be insignificant.
5. Other approaches commonly applied in transport demand model are discrete choice
models, neural network, and fuzzy logic. Fuzzy logic approaches have capability to
handle data based on approximation and subjective knowledge, so that they could reduce
data collection costs and have potential to be applied in developing countries.

269
Chapter Eight presents the development of a multicriteria analysis method for road project
evaluation in developing countries where Indonesian conditions and decision-making process
are used as a case study. This chapter can be concluded as follows:

1. The planning process in Indonesia is quite complex where decision is made through
hierarchical process and several steps. In such planning processes, good coordination
between levels of decision-making and between actors involved in decision-making is
essential. Such coordination was ineffective.
2. Although public participation is allowed in planning process in Indonesia, it is considered
too far from where decisions are made. Public participation in Indonesia is not regularly
utilised (Briffet as cited in Purnama 2003).
3. The focus of road development in Indonesia is only on the construction process and
physical provision and not on the impacts evaluation. The absence of an evaluation system
could lead to a serious condition such as reported by the World Bank (1999) where a bias
in the allocation of funds for road maintenance occurred.
4. Multicriteria analysis is considered suitable for road project evaluation in Indonesia. The
use of multicnteria analysis need not convert criteria to monetary terms, which reduces
other modelling needs such as value of time modelling, value of life modelling, etc. The
development of multicriteria analysis model is intended to assist decision makers in
coordination processes.
5. The AHP is used to generate values of qualitative criteria using expert judgment. The
experts are considered not to find difficulty in applying the AHP. The AHP judgment
scale is improved using a modified Finan and Hurley's scale. The modified Finan and
Hurley' s method follows the main principle of the original A}IP where the lowest level of
importance is 1 and the highest level of importance is 9. The difference is that the
modified Finan and Hurley's scale produces a perfectly consistent comparison matrix
(where the largest eigenvalue equal to the number of alternatives or criteria) as long as the
analyst consistently follows the order of verbal judgments. Compared to other scale
judgments, the results of the modified Finan and Hurley's scale developed in this research
are the closest ones to the results of Saaty's 1-9 scale.
6. To determine subjective criteria weights of decision makers, a model called proportional
model is developed. The proportional method divides a set of criteria into pairs of criteria
and the percentage of weight of a criterion in each pair is then given. The results of this
process are totalled up to derive the final weight of each criterion. Saaty's 1-9 verbal
judgments are used to determine proportion of weight of a criterion in each pair. The
weight of criteria in a group decision-making is determined based on the correlation
270
 between the subjective weights of different decision maker, so that each decision maker
knows his/her position in a group decision-making. The proportional method is considered
simple, flexible and transparent.
7. To represent the views of public, a model to determine objective criteria weights called
PRODEM model is developed. It is considered that the views of public are objective. The
PRODEM model has several benefits compared to other objective criteria weights
determination methods such as CRITIC and entropy models. The benefits of the
PRODEM are: it uses the linear scale transformation method to normalise criteria, which
maintains the characteristic of the original data; it takes into account both contrast
intensity and interaction between criteria such as CRITIC, but it produces final results
higher than the final results of CRITIC; it has a behavioural background; and it is flexible
as the analyst is allowed to change the diversion parameter.

Chapter Nine presents the development of passenger demand model. The developed model is
calibrated using inter sub-province passenger demand data of Central Java (Indonesia). This
chapter can be concluded as follows:

1. In order to make the four-step model elastic, an accessibility variable is commonly

incorporated in trip generation model. This method often leads to unexpected results in
which the accessibility variable is either insignificant or give the wrong sign.
2. This research developed a model where the accessibility variable is calibrated
simultaneously with other steps, from traffic assignment to trip generation. The
parameters estimation in this model is designed to be trip generation specific by which
significant correlation between accessibility variable and trip generation is ensured.
3. The developed model extends the Evans (1976) combined trip distribution and traffic
assignment model to include modal split and accessibility parameter estimation in the
algorithm.

Chapter Ten presents the development of a freight demand model. The developed model is
calibrated using inter sub-province freight demand data of Central Java (Indonesia). This
chapter can be concluded as follows:

1. The teclmiques applied in freight demand modelling are generally similar to the passenger
demand modelling. One of the techniques commonly applied in freight demand modelling
is direct demand model, which is actually a gravity-type model. The direct demand model
has several deficiencies that often lead to a low performance of the calibrated model.

271
2. This research introduced a new structure and procedure in developing direct demand
models. The improved direct demand model consists of several sub-models, where each
sub-model becomes an independent variable in model estimation. The sub-models are
specified first to ensure that they have high correlation with the dependent variable and at
the same time they have low correlations with other sub-models. This process will
increase the chance of sub-models (variables) to be admitted in the model. The improved
direct demand model is elastic and has possibility to be extended to include mode choice
and traffic assignment.

Chapter Eleven present the application of the passenger transport demand model and the
freight transport demand model to forecast traffic volume and evaluate on Central Java road
network and to evaluate the 2011 Central Java road network planning. This chapter can be
concluded as follows:

1. The application of the extended Evans (1976) combined trip distribution and traffic
assignment model to calibrate inter sub-province travel demand in Central Java improves
the traditional four-step model significantly.
2. The application of the improved direct demand model improves the basic direct demand
model significantly. Spatial structure effects using competing destination model and
intervening opportunities are introduced to the model. It has better performance than the
improved direct demand model. Competing effects are present at origin zones, which
mean zones close to each other tend to have less freight attraction.
3. The application shows that two different aggregate transport demand models, the four-step
method and direct demand model, can be combined.
4. The parameters estimation processes developed in chapter 9 and chapter 10 improve the
elasticity of the aggregate transport demand model.
5. TrafikPlan, which was originally developed for dense network studies, can be applied for
regional network studies as well.
6. The main problems of transport demand modelling in developing countries are data
reliability and availability.
7. The Central Java road network planning undertaken by the Ministry of Regional
Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia is acceptable.
8. Overall the model application gives promising results, given the data are considered to
have low quality.

272
Chapter Twelve presents the development of transport demand model using traffic count
data. The developed model is calibrated using traffic volume data on two main routes of
Central Java (Indonesia) intercity road network. This chapter can be concluded as follows:

1. The simple gravity model usually applied in the traffic count based model using structured
approach has several deficiencies. To reduce the deficiencies, modification of the simple
gravity model to a model mathematically similar to multinomial logit model is done.
2. The model assumes that traffic on a particular link consist of several socio-economic
interactions between zones, consequently the model must incorporate several socio-
economic interactions model or several multinomial logit models.
3. The developed model significantly improves the performance of the traditional traffic
count based model using structured approach when applied to estimate traffic volumes on
main routes of Central Java road network. The developed model may be extended to be
able to capture the effects of congestion, so that it can be applied for studies in urban area.
4. The developed model is suitable for road network planning in developing countries; it can
be developed using minimum data and can take into account the benefits and costs of road
network changes on transport demand.

13.2 Contributions of the Research

The contributions of the research are:

1. The research could increase the awareness of decision makers in Indonesia in particular
and in developing countries in general regarding the needs for road project evaluation in
particular and transport projects evaluation in general.
2. The research offers a comprehensive road project evaluation method using multicriteria
analysis. The research also offers a set of better transport demand models as a main input
of the evaluation, where the models can be applied in conditions when origin destination
data are both available and unavailable, and all the models are elastic (a necessary
condition in road project evaluation). The developed multicriteria analysis model and
transport demand models considers situations and conditions found in Indonesia and other
developing countries, so that the models have higher chance to be applied.
3. The research introduces a new model called PRODEM to determine objective criteria
weights, where it is proven to be theoretically and practically better than CRITIC and
entropy model.
273
4. The research improves the judgment scales of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
5. The research introduces a new model called Proportional Model to determine subjective
criteria weights.
6. The research improves the structure and estimation method of the combined trip
generation, trip distribution, mode split, and traffic assignment model using aggregate
data.
7. The research improves the structure and estimation method of direct demand models.
8. The research introduces the inclusion of spatial structures effects on freight demand
model.
9. The research improves the structure and estimation method of traffic count based model
using structured approaches.

13.3 Further Research Recommendations

13.3.1 Further Research for the Developed Evaluation System

The evaluation system developed in this research has been proven to be theoretically
applicable for road project evaluation in developing countries. However, because of time and
data limitations, there has been no opportunity for the developed evaluation system to be
applied in a real-world situation. Thus author of this thesis encourages other researchers to
apply this evaluation system in road projects evaluation.

From the application of the evaluation system, we may find several important conclusions:

1. Whether experts find difficulty in applying the modified AHP to value criteria using
expert judgment or not,
2. Whether decision makers find difficulty in applying the proportion model or not,
3. Whether the inclusion of the PRODEM is necessary or not, and finally
4. Whether all actors in decision-making process are satisfied with the outcomes of the
evaluation or not.

13.3.2 Further Research for the Developed Transport Demand Models

274
The transport demand models developed in this research are applied at the regional level only.
Again because of time and data limitation, the application of the models in urban area was not
possible. The author of this thesis encourages researchers to apply the models developed in
the thesis (along with models previously developed and have similar intention) in urban area,
and compares the results of application of these models.

For the passenger transport demand model, we may compare the model developed in this
thesis with the simultaneous transport equilibrium model (STEM). Two criteria can be used in
the comparison: first, the performance of trip generation model, and second, the difference
between observed and estimated traffic volumes.

For the freight demand model, we may compare the model developed in this thesis with
traditional direct demand model. We may also consider other forms of competing destination
model as well as intervening opportunities model.

For the traffic count based model, we may compare the model developed in this thesis with
the model developed by Holm et al. (1976).

275
 REFERENCE S

Abelson, P.W. and Hensher, D 2001, 'Induced travel and user benefits: clarifying definitions
and measurement for urban road', in Handbook of Transport System and Traffic Control, eds
KJ Button & DA Hensher, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 125-141.

Abrahamson, T 2003, Estimation of Origin-Destination Matrices Using Traffic Counts A

Literature Survey, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, viewed 30 October
2003, <http ://www.iiasa.ac.at/publications/documents/IR-98 -021

Akcelick, R 1991, 'Travel Time Functions for Transport Planning Purposes: Davidson's
Function, its Time-Dependent Form and an Alternative Travel Time Function', Australian
Road Research, vol.21, no.3, pp. 49-59, Revised Dec 2000.

Aldian, A & Taylor, MAP 2003, 'Fuzzy multicriteria analysis for inter-city travel demand
modelling', Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, vol. 5, pp.1294-
1307.

Algers, 5, Daly, A, Kjellerman, P & Widlert, S 1995, 'Stockholm Model System (SIMS)
Application', in 7th WCTR, Sydney, vol. 2, pp. 345-361.

Anas, A 1983, 'Discrete choice theory, information theory, and the multinomial logit and
gravity models', Transportation Research, 17 B, pp. 13-23.

Anderson, MD 2002, Performance of single internal trip purpose methodology to model

smaller urban area traffic, Journal of Urban Planning & Development, vol. 128, No. 7, pp. 1-
17

AUSTROADS 2000, Improving urban transport demand models and their use, Austroads
Incorporated, Sydney, NSW.

Bana E Costa, C 2001, 'The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to support the search for
less conflicting policy options in a multi-actor context: case study', Journal of Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis, vol. 10, pp. 111-125.

276
Banai-Khasani, R 1989, 'Discrete mode-choice analysis of urban travel demand by the
Analytic Hierarchy Process', Transportation, vol. 16, PP. 8 1-96.

Banister, D 2001, 'Transport planning', in Handbook of Transport System and Traffic

Control, eds KJ Button & DA Hensher, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 9-19.

Bappenas 2003, Manual for 2003 national development planning, Bappenas, Jakarta,
Indonesia, (in Indonesian).

Bappenas 2004, Indonesian law number 25/2004: national planning development system,
Bappenas, Jakarta, Indonesia, (in Indonesian).

Bates, J. 2000, 'History of demand modelling', in Handbook of Transport Modelling, eds DA

Hensher & KJ Button, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 11-33.

Bayliss, B 1988, The Measurement of supply and demand in freight transport, Avebury,
Aldershot, England.

Belton, V & Gear, T 1983, 'On a short-coming of Saaty's method of Analytic Hierarchy
Process', Omega, pp. 228-230.

Ben-Akiva, M & Lerman, SR 1985, Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to
Travel Demand, MIT Press.

Ben-Akiva, M & Bierlaire, M, Discrete Choice Methods and Their Applications to Short
Term Travel Decisions, viewed 25 September 2002,
<http ://dmawww.epfl.chlroso.mosaic/mbifhandbook-final.htm>

Bennett, CR & Paterson, WDO 2000, A Guide to calibration and adaptation, Highway
Development and Management (HDM-4) Series, vol. 5, The World Road Association
(PIARC), Paris.

Benyon, M 2002, 'An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison
scales within AHP', European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 140, pp. 104-117.

277
Beser, M & Algers, S 2001, 'SAMPERS- the new Swedish national travel demand forecasting
tool, in National Transport Model: Recent developments and Prospects, eds L Lundqvist &
LG Mattson, Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 101-118.

Beuthe, M 2002, 'Transport evaluation methods: from cost-benefits analysis to multicriteria

analysis and the decision framework', in Project and Policy Evaluation in Transport, eds L
Giorgi, A Pearman, A Tandon, A Tsamboulas & C Reynaud, Ashgate, Aldershot, England.

Black, W 1995, 'Spatial interaction modelling using artificial neural network', Journal of
Transport Geography, vol. 3, pp. 159-166.

Boyce, DE, Zhang, Y & Lupa, M 1994, 'Introducing 'feedback' into the four-step travel
forecasting procedure vs the equilibrium solution of a combined model', Transportation
Research Record, no. 1443, pp. 65-74.

Boyce, DE & Zhang, Y 1997, 'Calibrating combined model of trip distribution, modal split,
and traffic assignment', Transportation Research Record, no. 1607, pp. 1-5.

Boyce, DE 2002, 'Is the sequential travel forecasting paradigm counterproductive', Journal of
Urban Planning and Development, vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 169-183.

Bristow, AL & Nellthorp, J 2000, 'Transport Project appraisal in the European Union',
Transport Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 5 1-60.

Brown, M., Mimer, S. and Bulman, E 2001, 'Assessing transport investment projects: a policy
assessment model', in Transport Policy and Research: What Future, eds L Girogi & RI
Pohoryles, Ashgate, Aldershot, England.

BTCE 1997, 'Roads 2020', Working Paper, no. 35, Bureau of Transport and Communications
Economic, Canberra.

BTE 1998, 'Urban transport models: A Review', Working Paper, no. 39, Bureau of Transport
Economic, Canberra.

BTRE 2004, Facts and furphies in CBA: Transport, Bureau of Transport Economic,
Canberra, viewed 16 August 2004, <http://www.bte.gov.auldocs/index.htm>

278
Button, KJ 2001, Economics of transport networks, in Handbook of Transport Systems and
Traffic Control, eds KJ Button and DA Hensher, Pergamon, Oxford, pp. 61-75.

Button, KJ & Pearman, AD (eds) 1983, The practice of transport investment appraisal,
Avebury, Aldershot, England.

Cagno, E, Caron, F & Perego, A 2001, 'Multi-criteria assessment of the probability of

winning in the competitive bidding process', International Journal of Project Management,
vol. l9,pp. 313-324.

Carisson, C, & Fuller, R 1996, 'Fuzzy multiple criteria decision making: recent
developments', Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 78, pp. 139-153.

Central Government of Indonesia 2004, Central Government of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia,

viewed 9 March 2004, <http ://portal.lin. go .idlswaPortal.asp?viewdaerah>.

Central Statistics Bureau of Central Java 1997, Central Java in figures 1997, Central
Statistics Bureau of Central Java, Semarang, Indonesia.

Central Statistics Bureau of Central Java 2002, Central Java in figures 2002, Central
Statistics Bureau of Central Java, Semarang, Indonesia.

Chambers, LD & Taylor, MAP 1999, Strategic planning processes, tools and outcomes,
Ashgate, Aldershot, England.

Chen, SJ & Hwang, CL 1992, Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making methods and
Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Cheng, CH, Yang, KL & Hwang, CL 1999, 'Evaluating attack helicopters by ARP based on
linguistic variables weight', European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 116, pp. 423-
435.

Choo, EU, Schoner, B & Wedley, WC 1999, 'Interpretation of criteria weights in multicritena
decision making', Computers & Industrial Engineering, vol. 37, pp. 527-541.

279
Coyle, JJ, Bardi, EJ & Novack, RA 1994, Transportation, 4th edn, West Publishing
Company, St Paul, Minneapolis.

Crevo, CC 2001, A Contrast of Statewide Models for Small, Medium, and large States,
viewed 25 September 2001,
<http ://ww.nationalacademics.orgltrb/publications/ec0 11

Daly, A & Ortuzar, J de D 1990, 'Forecasting and data aggregation: theory and practice,,
Traffic Engineering and Control, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 632-643.
Daly, A 2000, 'National models', in Handbook of Transport Modelling, eds DA Hensher &
KJ Button, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 421-432.

Daly, A 2001, 'Updating and extending national models', in National Transport Model:
Recent developments and Prospects, eds L Lundqvist & LG Mattson , Springer, Berlin,
Germany.

Daniels, R & Adamowicz, V 2000, 'Environmental valuation', in Handbook of Transport

Modelling, eds DA Hensher & KJ Button, Pergamon, Oxford, UK.

Davidson, KB 1966, 'A Flow - Travel Time Relationship for Use in Transportation Planning',
in 3?dARRB Conference Proceedings, vol.3, pt.1, pp. 183-194.

D'Este, G 2000, 'Urban freight movement modelling', in Handbook of Transport Modelling,

eds DA Hensher & KJ Button, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 539-552.

D'Este, G & Taylor, MAP 2001, 'Modelling network vulnerability at the level of the national
strategic transport network', Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 4,
vol. 2, pp. 1-14.

Deng, H, Yeh, CH & Willis, RJ 2000, 'Inter-company comparison using modified TOPSIS
with objective weights', Computers & Operations Research, vol. 27, pp. 963-973.

de Jong, G 2000, 'Value of freight travel-time savings', in Handbook of Transport Modelling,

eds DA Hensher & KJ Button, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 553-564.

280
de la Barra, T 1989, Integrated land use and transport modelling: decision chains and
hierarchies, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, Australia.

DGLT, 2004, Asian highway network in Indonesia, Directorate General of Land Transport of
Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Dia, H and Rose, G 1997, 'Development and evaluation of neural network freeway incident
detection models using field data', Transportation Research C, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 313-331.

Diakoulaki, D, Mavrotas, G & Papayannakis, L 1995, 'Determining objective weights in

multiple criteria problems: the CRITIC method', Computer Operations Research, vol. 22, no.
7, pp. 763-770.

Dial, RB 1971, 'A probabilistic multi-path assignment model which obviates path
enumeration, Transportation Research, vol.5, no.2, pp.83-1 11.

Dickey, JW and Miller, LH 1984, Road project appraisal for developing countries, John
Wiley & Sons, New York.

Easa, SM 1993a, 'Urban transportation in practice I: conventional analysis', Journal of

Transportation Engineering, ASCE, vol. 119, no. 6, pp. 793-815.

Easa, SM 1993b, 'Urban transportation in practice II: quick response and special topics',
Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, vol. 119, no. 6, pp. 8 16-834.

Easley, RF, Valacich, JS & Venkataramanan, MA 2000, 'Capturing group preferences in a

multicritena decision', European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 125, pp. 73-83.

Erlander, S & Stewart, NF 1990, The gravity model in transportation analysis: theory and
extensions, VSP, The Netherlands.

Evans, SP 1976, 'Derivation and analysis of some models for combining trip distribution and
assignment', Transportation Research, Vol. 10, pp. 37-57.

281
Fan, ZP, Ma, J & Zhang, Q 2002, 'An approach to multiple attribute decision making based
on fuzzy preference information on alternatives', Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol.131, pp. 101-
106.

Fay, A 2000, 'A fuzzy knowledge-based system for railway traffic control', Engineering
Application of Intelligence, vol. 13, pp. 719-729.

Fernandez, LJE, de Cea, CJ & Soto, OA 2003, A multi-modal supplydemand equilibrium

model for predicting intercity freight flows, Transportation Research B, vol. 37, pp. 615-640.

Ferrazzi, G, Bolt, R & Kirby, B 1993, Constraints and opportunities in village to district
bottom-up planning: experience from North Sulawesi, in Indonesia Multidimensional
Development, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, Special issue, eds M Genne & FH
Cummings, pp. 167-187.

FHWA 1998, Quick response freight manual final report, Washington DC, Federal
Highways Administration.

Finan, JS & Hurley, WJ 1999, 'Transitive calibration of AHP verbal scale', European Journal
of Operational Research, vol. 112, pp. 367-372.

Florian, M, Nguyen, S & Ferland, J 1975, 'On the combined distribution-assignment of

traffic', Transportation Science, vol. 9, pp. 43-53.

Florian, M and Nguyen, S 1978, 'A combined trip Distribution, modal split and assignment
model', Transportation Research, vol. 12, pp. 241-246.

Fotheringham, AS 1983, 'A new set of spatial interaction models: The theory of competing
destinations', Environment and PlanningA, vol. 15, pp. 15-36

Friedlander, AF & Sapdy, RM 1980, 'A derived demand function for freight transport',
Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 62, pp. 432-441.

Friesz, TL 2000, 'Strategic freight network planning models', in Handbook of Transport

Modelling, eds DA Hensher & KJ Button, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 527-537.

282
Gaudry, M & Lamarre, L 1979, 'Estimation origin-destination matrices from traffic counts: a
simple linear intercity model for Quebec', The Logistics and Transportation Review, vol. 15,
no. 5, pp. 63 1-642

Gercek, H, Karpak, B & Kilncaslan, T 2004, 'A multiple criteria approach for the evaluation
of the rail transit networks in Istanbul', Transportation, vol. 31, pp. 203-228.

Gillis, M, Perkins, DH, Roemer, M & Snodgrass, DR 1996, Economics of Development, 4th
edn, W.W. Norton & Company, New York.

Gioirgi, L & Tandon, A 2002, 'Introduction: the theory and practice of evaluation', in Project
and Policy Evaluation in Transport, eds L Giorgi, A Pearman, A Tandon, A Tsamboulas, &
Reynaud, C, Ashgate, Aldershot, England.

Guldman, JM 1999, 'Competing destinations and intervening opportunities interaction models

of inter-city telecommunication flows', Papers in Regional Science, vol. 78, pp. 179-194

Harker, PT 1987, Predicting intercity freight flows, VNU Science Press, Utrecht, The
Netherlands.

Harker, PT & Vargas, LG 1987, 'The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's Analytic
Hierarchy Process', Management Science, vol. 36, pp. 1383-1403.

Hasan, MK & Safwat, KNA 2000, 'Comparison of two transportation network equilibrium
modelling approaches', Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 126, no. 1, pp. 35-40.

Hayashi, Y & Morisugi, H 2000, 'International comparison of background concept and

methodology of transportation project appraisal', Transport Policy, vol. 7, pp. 73-88.

Hensher, DA & Button, KJ 2000, 'Introduction', in Handbook of Transport Modelling, eds

DA Hensher & KJ Button, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 1-10.

Hensher, DA and Ton, TT 2000, 'A comparison of the predictive potential of artificial neural
networks and nested logit models for commuter mode choice', Transportation Research E,
vol.36, pp. 155-172.

283
Himanen, V, Nijkamp, P & Reggiani, A (eds) 1998, Neural network in transport application,
Ashgate, Aldershot, England.

Hine, JL, Ebden, JH & Swan, P 1997, 'A comparison of freight transport operations in
Tanzania and Indonesia', TRL Research Report, no.267, Transport Research Laboratory,
Crowthorne.

Hogberg, P 1976, 'Estimation of parameters in models for traffic prediction: a non linear
regression approach', Transportation Research, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 263-265.

Holm, J, Jensen, T, Nielsen, 5, Christensen, A, Johnsen, B & Ronby, G 1976, 'Calibrating

traffic models on traffic census results only', Traffic Engineering and Control, vol. 17, no. 4,
pp. 137-140.

Hoogendoorn, S., Lanser, S.H. and Schuurman, H. 2001, Fuzzy perspective in traffic
engineering, viewed 15 November 2001,
<http ://www.erudit.de/erudit/events/tc-c/hoogendoorn 1

Hwang, CL & Yoon, K 1981, Multiple attributes decision making methods and
applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Islam, S 2002, 'Optimum growth theory and social time preference: a computerised
mathematically modelling exercise to choose a social discount rate', in Cost-Benefit Analysis.
Environmental and Ecological Perspectives, ed K Puttaswamaiah, Transaction Publishers,
London, UK.

Jara-Diaz, 5 2000, 'Allocation and valuation of travel-time savings', in Handbook of

Transport Modelling, eds DA Hensher & KJ Button, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 303-3 19.

Jankowski, P 1995, 'Integrating geographical information systems and multiple criteria

decision-making methods', International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, vol.
9, no. 3, pp. 251-273.

Jessop, A 1999, 'Entropy in multiattribute problems, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision

Analysis, vol. 8, pp. 61-70.

284
Jessop, A 2004, 'Minimally biased weight determination in personal selection', European
Journal of Operational Research, vol. 153, pp. 433-444.

Jewell, WS 1967, 'Models for traffic assignment', Transportation Research, vol. 1, pp. 31-46.

Karlqvist, A & Marksjo, B 1971, 'Statistical urban models', Environment and Planning, vol
3, pp. 83-98.

Kerali, HGR 2000, Overview of HDM-4, Highway Development and Management (HDM-4)
Series, vol. 1, The World Road Association (PIARC), Paris.

Khasnabis, 5, & Chaudry, BB 1994, 'Prioritising transit markets using Analytic Hierarchy
Process', Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 120, no. 1, pp. 74-93.

Khisty, CJ & Rahi, MY 1990, 'Evaluation of three inexpensive travel demand models for
small urban areas', Transportation Research Records, vol. 1283, pp. 70-78.

Kirschfink, H & Lieven, K 2001, Basic tolls for fuzzy modeling, viewed 15 November 2001,
<http

Klungboongkrong, P 1998, 'Development of a decision support tool for the multicritena

environmental impact evaluation of urban road networks', PhD thesis, University of South
Australia.

Klungboongkrong, P & Taylor, MAP 1999, 'An integrated planning tool for evaluating road
environmental impacts', Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, vol. 14, pp.
335-345.

Kompas 2003, Jalur pantura, Kompas Online, viewed 4 April 2003,

<http://www.kompas.com>.

Lanser, SH & Hoggendoom, S (2001), A fuzzy genetic approach to travel choice behaviour in
public transport networks, viewed 15 November 2001,
<http :I/www.

285
Lee, DB Jr 2000, 'Methods for evaluation of transportation projects in the USA', Transport
Policy, vol. 7, pp. 4 1-50.

Lei, P, A linier programming method for synthesizing origin-destination (O-D) trip tables
from traffic counts for inconsistent systems, viewed 19 January 2002,
<http :1/scholar. lib.vt.edultheses/available/etd-623 98-223925/>.

Li, D 1999, 'Fuzzy multiattribute decision-making models and methods with incomplete
preference information', Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 106, pp. 113-119.

Lichfield, N, Kettle, P & Whitbread, M 1975, Evaluation in the planning process, Pergamon
Press, Oxford.

Litman, T 1995, Determining generated traffic external cost, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, Victoria, BC, Canada.

Litman, T 2001, Generated traffic: implications for transport planning, Victoria Transport
Policy Institute, Victoria, BC, Canada.

Loudon, WR, Parameswaran, J & Gardner, B 1997, 'Incorporating feedback in travel

forecasting', Transportation Research Record, no. 1607, pp. 185-195.

Louvire, JJ, Hensher, DA & Swait, JD 2000, Stated choice methods: analysis and application,
Cambridge Press.

Low, D 1972, 'A new approach to transportation systems modelling', Traffic Quarterly, vol.
26, pp. 39 1-404.

Lubis, HAS, Sjarifuddin, A, Karsaman, RH, Armijaya, H & Munandar, AS 2001,

'Developing performance indicators for road development in Indonesia', Proceeding of the
Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 389-403.

Lundqvist, L & Mattson, LG 2001, 'National transport models: Introduction and comparative
analysis', in National Transport Model: Recent developments and Prospects, eds L Lundqvist
& LG Mattson, Springer, Berlin, Germany.

286
Ma, J, Fan, ZP & Huang, LH 1999, 'A subjective and objective integrated approach to
determine attribute weights', European journal of operational research, vol. 112, pp. 397-
404.

Mackie, P & Preston, J 1998, 'Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project
appraisal', Transport Policy, vol. 5, pp. 1-7.

Mackie, P & Nellthorp, J 2001, 'Cost-Benefit Analysis in transport', in Handbook of

Transport System and Traffic Control, eds KJ Button & DA Hensher, Pergamon, Oxford, UK,
pp. 143-174.

Marichal, JL & Roubens, M 2000, 'Determination of weights of interacting criteria from a

reference set', European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 124, pp. 64 1-650.

McCoubrey, WJ (2001), HDM-4 Review Project: Information Needs for Decision Taking,
viewed 27 September 2001,
<http://hdm4.piarc.org/cgibinlcount/cdreports2 .cgi?file=Decision_Information_Needs_English>.

McGinnis, M 1989, 'A comparative evaluation of freight transportation choice model',

Transportation Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 36-46.

McNally, MG 2000a, 'The four-step model', in Handbook of Transport Modelling, eds DA

Hensher & KJ Button, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp. 35-52.

McNally, MG 2000b, 'The activity-based approach', in Handbook of Transport Modelling,

eds DA Hensher & KJ Button, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp.53-64.

Metaxatos, P, Boyce, D, Florian, M & Constantin, 11995, 'Implementing combined model of

origin-destination and route choice in EMME/2 system', Transportation Research Records,
vol. 1493, pp. 57-63.

Meyer, MD and Miller, BJ 1984, 'Urban transportation planning', McGraw-Hill.

Meyer, MID & Miller, EJ 2001, Urban transportation planning, 2nd edn, McGraw-Hill, New
York.

287
Ministry of Communication of Indonesia 1997, National origin destination study: final
report, Ministry of Communication of Indonesia, Jakarta, (in Indonesian).

Ministry of Communication of Indonesia 2002, National origin destination study: final

report, Ministry of Communication of Indonesia, Jakarta, (in Indonesian).

Ministry of Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia 2001, Road physical

condition, traffic and human resources in north coast route of Java, Ministry of Regional
Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, (in Indonesian), viewed 11
March 2004,
<http ://www.kimpraswil.go.idlpublik/proy_strategis/panturafFr_permasalahan.asp>

Ministry of Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia 2004, Info Peta, Ministry of
Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, viewed 19 January
2005, 9 March 2004,
<http ://www.pu.go .idlpublik/lpi-pulinfopetalimages/j lfung3 3 .jpg>

Ministry of Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia 2005, Proyek Strategis,

Ministry of Regional Infrastructure and Settlement of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia, viewed
19 January 2005,
<http ://www.kimpraswil.go .idlpubliklproy_strategis/panturalmaster%2Oplan.pdf5'

Mishan, EJ 1971, Cost-benefit analysis: an informal introduction, George Allen & Unwin,
London.

Morisugi, H 2000, 'Evaluation methodologies for transportation projects in Japan', Transport

Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 3 5-40.

Munda, G 1995, Multicriteria evaluation in fuzzy environment: theory and applications in

ecological economics, Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.

Munir, B 2002, Regional development planning. decentralisation perspective, BAPPEDA

Propinsi NTB, Mataram, Indonesia, (ni Indonesian).

Nam, KC 1997, 'A study on the estimation and aggregation of disaggregate models of mode
choice for freight transport', Transportation research E, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 223-23 1

288
Neufville, R de 2003, Dynamic strategic planning for technology policy, viewed 2 April
2003,
<http :/Iwww.

Neveu, AJ 1983, 'Quick response procedure to forecast rural traffic', Transportation

Research Record, no. 944, pp. 47-53.

Niittymaki, J 1998, Fuzzy logic application for the public transport priorities at signalised
intersection, in Mathematics in transport planning and control. proceedings of the 3rd IMA
International Conference on Mathematics in Transport Planning and Control, ed JD
Griffiths, Pergamon, Oxford, UK.

Nijkamp, P & Deift, AV 1977, Multi-criteria analysis and regional decision-making', Studies
in Applied Regional Science, vol. 8, Martinus Nijhoff Social Science Division, Leiden.

Nijkamp, P, Rietveld, P & Voogd, H 1990, Multicriteria evaluation in physical planning,

Elsevier Science Publisher.

Noland, RB 2001, 'Relationship between highway capacity and induced vehicle travel',
Transportation Research A, vol.35, pp. 47-72.

Odoki, JN and Kerali, HGR 2000, Analytical Framework and Model Description, Highway
Development and Management (RDM-4) Series, vol. 4, The World Road Association
(PL&RC), Paris.

Oppenheim. N 1995, Urban travel demand modelling: from individual choice to general
equilibrium, John Wiley & Sons, USA.

Oral, M, Kettani, 0 & Cinar, U 2001, 'Project evaluation and selection in a network of
collaboration: a consensual disaggregation multi-criterion approach', European Journal of
Operational Research, vol. 130, pp. 332-346.

Ortuzar, J de & Willumsen, LG 1994, Modelling Transport, 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons,
England.

289
Pellegrini, PA & Fotheringham, AS 2002, 'Modelling spatial choice: a review and synthesis
in a migration context', Progress in human geography, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 487-5 10.

Primerano, F 2001, 'Understanding Accessibility', paper presented at 23rd Conference of the

Australian Institutes of Transport Research, Institute of Transport Studies, Monash
University, Melbourne.

Purnama, D 2003, 'Reform of the ETA process in Indonesia: improving the role of public
involvement', Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 23, pp. 415-439.

Quandt, RE & Baumol, W 1966, 'The demand for abstract transport modes: theory and
Measurement', Journal of Regional Science, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 13-26.

Quandt, RE (ed) 1970, The demand for travel: theory and measurement, Heath Lexington
Books, Massacchusetts, the USA.

Quinet, B 2000, 'Evaluation methodologies of transportation project in France', Transport

Policy, vol. 7, pp. 27-34.

Ramanathan, R 1997, 'Stochastic decision making using multiplicative AHP,, European

Journal of Operational Research, vol. 97, pp. 543-549.

Ray, T & Triantaphyllou, E 1999, 'Procedures for the evaluation of conflicts in rankings of
alternatives', Computers and Industrial Engineering, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 35-44.

Ribeiro, RA 1996, 'Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: a review and new preference
elicitation techniques', Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 78, pp. 155-181.

Rizal, S 1999, Transportation performance of north coast route between Jakarta to Surabaya,
Master Thesis, Gajah Mada University, Indonesia, (in Indonesian).

Robillard, P 1975, 'Estimating the O-D matrix from observed link volumes', Transportation
Research, vol. 9, pp. 123-128.

Rothengatter, W 2000, 'Evaluation of infrastructure investments in Germany', Transport

Policy, vol. 7, pp. 17-25.

290
Rouse, P & Putterill, M 2000, 'Highway performance', in Handbook of Transport Modelling,
eds DA Hensher & KJ Button, Pergamon, Oxford, UK.

Roy, JR 1981, 'A note on consistency of choice units in entropy models,, Transportation
Research B, vol. 15, pp. 159-164.

Roy, JR & Lesse, PF 1981, On appropriate microstate descriptions in entropy modelling,

Transportation Research B, vol. 15, pp. 8 5-96.

Roy, JR 1983, 'Estimation of singly-constrained nested spatial interaction models',

Environment and Planning B, vol. 10, pp. 269-274.

Rus, GD & Nash, C (eds) 1997, Recent developments in transport economics, Ashgate,
Aldershot, England.

Saaty, TL 1980, The analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority setting, Resource
Allocation, McGraw-Hill International Bok Company.

Saaty, TL & Vargas, LG 1987, The Logic of Priorities: Applications in Business, Energy,
Wealth, and Transportation, Kluwer Nijhoff Publishing.

Saaty, TL, 1989, 'Group decision making and the AHP', in the Analytic Hierarchy Process:
Applications and Studies, eds BL Golden, EA Wasil & PT Harker, Springer-Verlag, pp. 59-
67.

Saaty, TL 1990a, 'How to make decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process', European Journal
of Operational Research, vol. 48, pp. 9-26.

Saaty, TL 1 990b, 'An Exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper "Remarks on the Analytic
Hierarchy Process", Management Science, vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 259-268.

Saaty, TL 1 994a, 'Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic
Hierarchy Process', European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 74, pp. 426-447.

291
Saaty, TL 1994b, 'How to make decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process', Interfaces, vol.
24, no. 6, PP. 19-43.

Saaty, TL 1994c, Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the AHP, RWS
Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Saaty, TL 1995, 'Transport planning with multiple criteria: the Analytic Hierarchy Process
applications and progress review', Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 81-
126.

Saaty, TL 2004, 'Rank from comparison and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network
process', European Journal of Operational Research, (in press).

Saha, SK and Fricker, JD 1988, 'Traffic volume forecasting methods for rural state highways,
Transportation Research Record, no. 1203, pp. 10-26.

Saito, M 1987, 'Application of the Analytic Hierarchy method to setting priorities on bridge
replacement projects', Transportation Research Record, no. 1124, PP. 26-35.

Safwat, KNA & Magnanti, TL 1988, 'A combined trip generation, trip distribution, modal
split, and trip assignment model', Transportation Science, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 14-30.

Salminen, P, Hokkanen, J, & Lahdalema, R 1998, 'Comparing multicriteria methods in the

context of environmental problems', European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 104,
pp. 485-496.

Salo, AA and Hamalainen, RP 1992, 'Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements',

Operations Research, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 1053-1061.

Sayers, TM, Jessop, AT and Hills, PJ 2003, 'Multi-criteria evaluation of transport options-
flexible, transparent and user-friendly?', Transport Policy, vol. 10, pp. 95-105.

Scholl, A, Manthey, L, Helm, R & Steiner, M 2004, 'Solving multiattribute design problems
with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: an empirical comparison,' European
Journal of Operational Research, (in press).

292
Sen, A & Smith, TE 1995, Gravity Models of Spatial Interaction Behaviour, Springer, Berlin.

Sharpe, R & Karlqvist, A 1980, ,Towards a unifying theory for urban modelling', Regional
Science and Urban Economics, vol. 10, PP. 24 1-257.

Sharpe, R, Roy, JR & Taylor, MAP 1982, 'Optimising urban futures', Environment and
Planning B, vol. 9, pp. 209-220.

Silver, M 1997, Business Statistics, edn, McGraw-Hill International, London.

Sjafruddin, A, Astuti, RD & Frazila, RB 1999, 'Regional freight transport demand modelling
in the Java Island', Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, vol. 3, no.
3, pp. 303-3 13

Smith, BL and Demetsky, MJ 1997, 'Traffic flow forecasting: comparison of modelling

approaches', Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 123, no. 4, Pp. 261-266.

Srdjevic, Z. & Cveticanin, L 2004, 'Entropy compromise programming method for parameter
identification in the seated driver biomechanical model', International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, vol. 34, pp. 307-3 18.

State of Oregon Department of Transport 1997, Travel demand model development and
application guidelines, viewed 12 November 2004,
<http ://www.oregon. gov/ODOT/TD/TP/docs/TMRIGeneral/guidex

Statewide Travel Demand Forecasting Workshop 2001, Research Recommendations, viewed

25 November 2001,
<http://ww.nationalacademics.org/trb/publications/ec011 /recommen.pdf5'.

Stokes, RW 1995, 'Elasticity-based rural traffic forecasting models', Journal of

Transportation Engineering, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 234-239.

Stouffer, SA 1940, Intervening opportunities: A theory relating mobility and distance

American Sociological Review, vol. 5, pp. 845-867.

293
Sweroad 1997, Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual (IHCM), Directorate General Bina
Marga of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.

Tabucanon, MT & Lee, H 1995, 'Multiple criteria evaluation of transportation system

improvement projects: the case of Korea', Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 29, no. 1,
pp. 127-34.

Talvatie, A 2000, 'Evaluation of road projects and programs in developing countries',

Transport Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 6 1-72.

Tamin, OZ & Willumsen, LG 1989, 'Transport demand model estimation from traffic counts,
Transportation', vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3-26.

Tang, YF, Lam, HK & Pan, LPN 2003, 'Comparison of four modelling techniques for short-
term AADT forecasting in Hong Kong', Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 129, no.
3, pp. 271-277.

Taplin, JHE, Qiu, M & Zhang, Z 1996, 'Policy-sensitive selection and phasing of road
investments with a goal program', Transport Policy, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 25 1-256.

Tavasszy, LA, Groothedde, B & Ruijgrok, C 2000, Aggregate model of spatial logistics,
Third International Meeting for Research in Logistics, viewed 8 August 2004,
<http ://www.uqtr.uquebec.caJrirl2000/tav_gro.pdf5'

Taylor, MAP 1979, 'Evaluating the performance of a simulation model', Transportation

Research A, vol. 3, pp. 159-173.

Taylor, MAP 1981, 'Maximum likelihood estimation for a road traffic network model',
Applied Mathematical Modelling, Vol.5, No. 1, pp. 34-3 8.

Taylor, MAP & Sharpe, R 1982, 'Towards an understanding of modelling process', Seventh
Australian Transport Research Forum Papers, vol. 2, pp. 46 1-475.

Taylor, MAP 1988, 'MULATM and the SEMARL project', Traffic Engineering and Control,
vol. 29, no.2, pp. 64-71, and vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 135-141.

294
Taylor, MAP 1991, 'Traffic planning by a 'desktop expert", Computers, Environment and
Urban Systems, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 165-177.

Taylor, MAP 1992, TrafikPlan user manual part B: theoretical aspects, School of Civil
Engineering, University of South Australia.

Taylor, MAP, Young, W & Bonsall, PW 1996, Understanding traffic system: data, analysis
and present ation, Avebury Technical Books, England.

Taylor, MAP 1998, 'An extended family of traffic network equilibria and its implications for
land use and transport policies', in World Conference on Transport Research, Antwerp,
vol. 4, pp. 29-42.

Taylor, MAP 1999, 'Dense network traffic models, travel time reliability and traffic
management. I: general introduction', Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 33, no. 2, pp.
2 18-233.

Taylor, MAP, Bonsall, PW & Young, W 2000, Understanding traffic systems data, analysis
and presentation, 2nd edn, Ashgate.

Taylor, MAP & Ampt, ES 2003, 'Travelling smarter down under: policies for voluntary travel
behaviour change in Australia', Transport Policy, vol. 10, pp. 165-177.

Taylor, MAP, Scraflon, D, McCamey, G & Oxlad, LM 2004, 'Travel demand modelling in
Australia-reviews of practice and promise in Perth and Adelaide', papers of the 27th
Australian Transport Research Forum, October, Adelaide, CD-ROM, paper no. 69,
(Department of Transport and Urban Planning, and Transport system Centre, Adelaide).

Teodorovic, D & Vukadinovic K 1998, Traffic control and transport planning: a fuzzy sets
and neural networks approach, Kiuwer Academic, The Netherlands.

Teodorovic, D 1999, 'Fuzzy logic systems for transportation engineering: the state of the art',
Transportation Research A, vol. 33, pp. 337-364.

Thomas, R 1991, Traffic assignment techniques, Avebury Technical, Aldershot, England.

295
Tisato, P 1991, 'Suggestions for an Improved Davidson Travel Time Function', Australian
Road Research, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 85-100.

Tracz, M & Wawrzynkiewicz, B 1993, 'Knowledge acquisition from multiple experts: a case
of transport planning in Poland', in Expert System in Environmental Planning, eds JR Wright,
LL Wiggins, RK Jam & TJ Kim, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 26 1-274.

Triantaphyllou, E & Lin, CT 1996, 'Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute
decision-making methods', International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 14, pp.
281-310.

Triantaphyllou, B, Kovalerchuk, B, Mann, L & Knapp, GM 1997, 'Determining the most

important criteria in maintenance decision making', Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 16-28.

Triantaphyllou, E, Shu, B, Sanchez, N & Ray, T 1998, 'Multi-criteria decision making: an

operation research approach', in Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Vol. 15, ed JG Webster, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 175-186.

Triantaphyllou, B & Baig, K 2004, 'The impact of aggregating benefit and cost criteria in four
MCDA methods', IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, (in press).

Trujillo, L, Quinet, E & Estache, A 2002, 'Dealing with demand forecasting games in
transport privatisation', Transport Policy, vol. 9, pp. 325-334.

Tsamboulas, D, Yiotis, GS & Panou, KD 1999, 'Use of multicriteria methods for assessment
of transport projects', Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol. 125, no. 5, pp. 407-414.

U.K. Department of Transport 1993, COBA manual revisions to 15/11/93, London: Highways
Economics and Traffic Appraisal Divisions, Department of Transport.

LTNESCAP 2004, Asian Highway Route Map in Indonesia, United Nations Economic and
Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, viewed 1 April 2004,
<http://www.unescap.org/tctdJah1files/hidonesiaHP.pdf5'

296
USAID 2002, Indonesia 's Decision-Makers Open Up to the Public, The United State of
America Agency for International Development, viewed 15 May 2002,
<http ://www.usaid.gov/idlachieve-democracy.html>.

Van Groenendaal, WJH 2003, 'Group decision support for public policy planning',
Information and Management, vol. 40, pp. 37 1-380.

Vargas, LG 1990, 'An overview of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and its application',
European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 48, pp. 2-8.

Vickerman, R 2000, 'Evaluation methodologies for transportation projects in the United

Kingdom', Transport Policy, vol. 7, pp. 7-16.

Voogd, H 1983, Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning, Pion, 207
Brondesbury Park, London.

Wardrop, JG 1952, 'Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research', Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. 2 (1), pp.352-378.

Watkins, T 2004, Introduction to Cost-Benefit Analysis, viewed 04 August 2004,

<http ://www2 . sj su.edulfaculty/watkins/cba.htm>

Wedley, WC, Choo, EU and Schoner, B 2001, 'Magnitude adjustment for AHP benefit/cost
ratios', European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 97, pp. 342-351.

Willumsen, LG 1981, Simplified transport demand models based on traffic counts',

Transportation, vol. 10, no. 3, 257-278.

Willumsen, LG 2000, 'Travel Networks', in Handbook of Transport Modelling, eds DA

Hensher & KJ Button, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, pp.165-180.

Wilson, AG 1967, 'A statistical theory of spatial distribution models', Transportation

Research, vol. 1, pp. 253-269.

Wilson AG 1970a, 'Inter-regional commodity flows: entropy maximising approaches',

GeographicalAnalysis, vol. 2, pp. 255-282.

297
Wilson, AG 1970b, Entropy in urban and regional modelling, Pion, London.

Wilson, AG 1971, 'A family of spatial interaction models and associated developments',
Environment and Planning, vol. 3, pp 1-32.

Wilson, AG 1974, Urban and regional models in geography and planning, John Wiley,
London and New York.

Wilson, AG and Kirkby, MJ 1980, Mathematics for Geographers and Planners, 2nd edn,
Oxford University Press, New York.

Winston, C 1981, 'A disaggregate model of the demand for intercity freight transport',
Econometrica, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 981-1006.

Wirasinghe, SC & Kumarage, AS 1998, 'An aggregate demand model for intercity passenger
travel in Sri Lanka', Transportation, vol. 25, pp. 77-98.

Woolley, JE & Young, TM 1994, 'Environment: the third dimension of the land-use transport
interaction', Papers of the Australasian Transport Research Forum 19, pp. 223-23 9.

World Bank 1999, 'Transport in Indonesia', OED Prcis, no. 190, World Bank Operations
Evaluation Department.

Xu, X 2004, 'A note on the subjective and objective integrated approach to determine
attribute weights', European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 156, pp. 530-532.

Yeh, CH, Deng, H, and Chang, YH 2000, 'Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making for
performance evaluation of bus companies', European Journal of Operational Research, vol.
126, pp. 459-473.

Young, W, Taylor, MAP & Gipps, PG 1989, Microcomputers in traffic engineering, Research
Studies Press, Taunton.

Zahedi, F 1986, 'The Analytic Hierarchy Process a survey of the method and its
applications', Interfaces, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 96-108.

298
Zeleny, M 1982, Multiple criteria decision making, McGraw-Hill, New York

Zimmerman, HJ 1991, Fuzzy sets theory and its application, Kiuwer Academic, Boston.

299

(BI) Method criterion
(82) Criteria purarsscters/
scope of impact
(83) Implementation of
evaluation policy
Comparison of Evaluation System in Developed Countries
United Kingdom
Uses CostBenefit Analysis
program COBA to Inform
decision.
Main beutfitu are *imc.savings
and accident reduction,
Environmentai and other factors
are taken into account
separately, but wilItout explicit
weights,
Rail appealed in based on
financial viability, except where
e.g. direct congestion relief
beaetirs,
Costbenefit ratio helps
detenninc ranking, but budget
for roads and other' qualitative
factors Influence final dccision.
In CBA. does not directly
include environmental cost or
benefit and economic impact on
surrounding regions. 'l'hese are
considered separately.
Appendix A
France
Uses Multi-Criteria Analysis
that aggregates result after
analysis of each criteria.
Now ulsifting towards ned-
criteria methods.
Weight assignment is given to
the decision-makers though
weights on WFP remiss and
subjective items sash as impact
on the local development are
becoming lens significant,
A new procedure ordered by law
cafled Plozrsde Deplacemht
Urbains (PDU) includes
indicators such as: total costs.
number of trips, average travel
thne, safety recrede, total air
pollution emissions, noise and
lund use impact.
PDU process gxgcals to reach in
teems of transport, pollnlion and
land ate, risen evaluates
scenarios to fulfill these goals,
and check the ability of these
scenarios in fulfilling the goala.
lIla not designated to allow the
Japan
Uses a kind of Mulli'Ctiieiia
Analysis supplemented by CBA
without explicit fonualu nor
weights for various impacts.
Main benefits are time and cost
savings and accident reduction,
In addition to CBA includes
evaluatiunofregionatecono.nic
impacts, global and local
environmental impacts,
contnburion to achieving
minimum living standards, and
back op Btnctice for
emergencies.
Road, airport and seaport
manual suggest the snaking of
Benefit Incidence Table (B1'I')
in order to consistently account
all impacts of the Investment
qualitatively, qaarrtitalively and
mcnrerarily.
comparison of different modes.
USA
Recommendu Cat-Benefit
Analysis, which may be
expanded to include equity
. impacts for large projects.
MCA variations and other
informal methods arc often used
at the regional level.
Impact of the project includes
travel time and cost savings (user
and agency>, safety. induced
demand (incremental consumer
sutplas). environmental
pollution and noise.
Land use impacts as well as
economic and development
impacts may be described, but do
not enter into costbenefit
evabalion except an they affect
travel demand.
Guidance is in the frent of policy
objectives and broad principles,
rather than prescriptive manuals.
Germany
Method used is based on
a CostBenefit
Analysis.
Criteria parameters
include: reduction of
transportation cost;
changes of infrastructure
maintenance cost;
improved traffic safety;
improved arcemibility
spatial effects; and
environmental sinsadolL
Prioeilizalion is based on
the benefitcost ratio
with other criteria on
regional political
assessment;
susrmmeot and impact
noto cranpeultaveneas of
the railway system.
Designed to allow
comparative assessment
of projects,
 Appendix A (Contd.)

United Kingdom France Japan USA Germany

(B4) Sought improvements Developing New Approach to
Appraisal (NATA) to include
COBA and appraisal of other
impacts
To use an Appraisal Summasy
Table (AST) based on five
objectives namely: environment,
safety, economy, accessibility
and integration.
Ettension to provide basis for
dealing with multi-modal
solutions to problems.
Formulation of an appraisal
system with unique criterion
based on economic theosy such
as Internal Rare of Return (IRR).
To include a wuforin monetaly
valuation for non market goods
and widen the scope to include
inter-modal comparison.
" introducing regional tpecific
For roads, an extended CBA
manual tries to monetarize the
improvement of landscape,
back-up function emergency
and the availability of public
bus operation,
A modified CBA manual tries to
comprehensively evaluate the
efilciesicy and eqwty In terms of
the regional welfare level by
weights of the benefits.
Common basis for comparing
projects is desired, especially
across modes. Benefitcoat (BC)
is the strongest framework at the
national level, but states and
localities lack BC teclmical skills,
MPO (metropolitan regions)
methods (mainly simulation) arc
different, and need to be
Integrated with BC.
Sought improvements
includcr consideration of
netwoat wide or
regional impact and
inclusion of fair
valuation of major
environmental impacts.

Source: Hayashi and Morisugi (2000)

 Appendix B

Transport Demand Model Applied in Developed Countries for Transport Project Evaluation

United Kingdom France Japan USA Germany

Method Conventional stepwise Conventional Stepwise method. Conventional stepwise Conventional Stepwise method. Conventional stepwise
method within traffic method for roads, method, integrated for road.
growth set by NRTF railways, but not rail, air and inland waterways.
(localized to reflect specified for seaports .

specific conditions). and airports. .

Treatment of induced demand
Other remarks
network as a whole.
Usc both fixed and Induced demand is sometimes Fixed OD tables except Induced demand is recognized Global trend for growth of
variable trip matrix; taken into consideration, for specific projects. but may be treated implicitly in travel distances. No project
variable trip matrix the forecast related induced demand.
based on traffic model Fixed trip table.
and not on wider land
use model.
Assumptions that So-called minimum sacrifice So-called minimum Forecast includes diverted traffic Forecast is integrated (multi-
traffic growth on each models is used to estimate traffic sacrifice models is used which is treated as part of modal). Assessment,
link is same as on volume of TOy diverted from to estimate traffic induced traffic. however, is still based on
air traffic. volume of airplane . partial analysis.
though not specified in
the manual.

'Minimum sacrifice model estimates traffic demand through probit model using a distribution of value of time.

Source: Hayashi and Morisugi (2000)

 ______ __________
_______

Appendix C

Evaluation System Applied in European Union

DIRECT IMPACTS
Capital Construction Costs
Disruption Costs
Land and Property Costs
Recurring Maintenance Costs
Operating Costs
Vehici. Operating Costs
Revenues
Passenger Cost Savings
Time Savings
Safety
Service Level
Information
Enforcement
Financing / Taxation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Noise
Vibration
Air Pollution- Local
Air Pollution - Global
Severance
Visual tntruiion
Loss of Important Sites
Resource Consumption
Landscape
Ground I Water Pollution
SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Land Use UCA:.. ....
Economic Development MCA..
Employment
Economic & Social Cohesion
International Traffic
Interoperabilily
Regional Policy .:

Key:
Conformity to Sector Plans
Perlpheralltyloistrlbution

CEA (Monetised Impacts>.

..,l
Impacts 1 Oualitatlve Assessment UCA - Included In Multi-Criteria Analysis

Source: Bristow and Nellthrop (2000)

 Appendix D
Criteria Weights Calculation Using Different Scale

Saaty 1-9 Scale

A B C D E weight
A 1.000 3.000 5.000 7.000 9.000 3.936 0.510
B 0.333 1.000 3.000 5.000 7.000 2.036 0.264
C 0.200 0.333 1.000 3.000 5.000 1.000 0.130
D 0.143 0.200 0.333 1.000 3.000 0.491 0.064
E 0.111 0,143 0.200 0.333 1.000 0.254 0.033
total (t) 1.787 4.676 9.533 16.333 25.000 7.718 0.174
weight(w) 0.510 0.264 0.130 0.064 0.033
txw 0.912 1.234 1.235 1.039 0.823 5.243

Saaty 1.1-1.9 Scale

A B C weight
A 1.000 1.300 1.500 1.700 1.900 1.445 0.279
B 0.769 1.000 1.300 1.500 1.700 1.206 0.233
C 0.667 0.769 1.000 1.300 1.500 1.000 0.193
D 0.588 0.667 0.769 1.000 1.300 0.829 0.160
E 0.526 0.588 0.667 0.769 1.000 0.692 0.134
total (t) 3.550 4.324 5.236 6.269 7.400 5.172 0.052
weight (w) 0.279 0.233 0.193 0.160 0.134
txw 0.992 1.008 1.012 1.005 0.990 5.008

Ma and Zheng Scale (Equation 8.15)

A B C D E weight
A 1.000 1.500 2.333 4.000 9.000 2.631 0.423
B 0.667 1.000 1.500 2.333 4.000 1.563 0.252
C 0.429 0.667 1.000 1.500 2.333 1.000 0.161
D 0.250 0.429 0.667 1.000 1.500 0.640 0.103
E 0.111 0.250 0.429 0.667 1.000 0.380 0.061
total (t) 2.456 3.845 5.929 9.500 17.833 6.214
weight(w) 0.423 0.252 0.161 0.103 0.061
xw 1.040 0.967 0.954 0.978 1.091 5.030

Ma and Zheng (Equation 8.16)

weight
A 1.000 1.286 1.800 3.000 9.000 2.286 0.392
B 0.778 1.000 1.286 1.800 3.000 1.401 0.240
C 0.556 0.778 1.000 1.286 1.800 1.000 0.171
D 0.333 0.556 0.778 1.000 1.286 0.714 0.122
E 0.111 0.333 0.556 0.778 1.000 0.437 0.075
total(t) 2.778 3.952 5.419 7.863 16.086 5.839 0.110
weight(w) 0.392 0.240 0.171 0.122 0.075
txw 1.088 0.948 0.928 0.961 1.205 5.131
 Donegan et a! (Equation 8.17)

A B C D E
A 1.000 1.339 1.792 2.400 3.213 1.792 0.330
B 0.747 1.000 1.339 1.792 2.400 1.339 0.246
C 0.558 0.747 1.000 1.339 1.792 1.000 0.184
D 0.417 0.558 0.747 1.000 1.339 0.747 0.137
E 0.3 11 0.417 0.558 0.747 1.000 0.558 0.103
total (t) 3.033 4.060 5.436 7.278 9.744 5.436 0.081
weight(w) 0.330 0.246 0.184 0.137 0.103
txw 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 5.000

Finan and Hurley's Scale

A B C D E
A 1.000 1.600 2.560 4.096 6.554 2.560 0.415
B 0.625 1.000 1.600 2.560 4.096 1.600 0.259
C 0.391 0.625 1.000 1.600 2.560 1.000 0.162
D 0.244 0.391 0.625 1.000 1.600 0.625 0.101
E 0.153 0.244 0.391 0.625 1.000 0.391 0.063
total(t) 2.412 3.860 6.176 9.881 15.810 6.176
weight(w) 0.415 0.259 0.162 0.101 0.063
txw 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 5.000

Modified Finan and Hurley's Scale (Equation 8.18)

A B C D E
A 1.000 1.732 3.000 5.196 9.000 3.000 0.452
B 0.577 1.000 1.732 3.000 5.196 1.732 0.261
C 0.333 0.577 1.000 1.732 3.000 1.000 0.151
D 0.192 0.333 0.577 1.000 1.732 0.577 0.087
E 0.111 0.192 0.333 0.577 1.000 0.333 0.050
total(t) 2.214 3.835 6.643 11.506 19.928 6.643 0.145
weight(w) 0.452 0.261 0.151 0.087 0.050
txw 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 5.000
 Appendix E
Speed Estimation using Indonesian Highway Capacity Manual (IHCM), Some
TrafikPlan Outputs, Intercity Travel Time calculated using TrafikPlan, and Origin
Destination Matrices

IHCM free flow speed estimation: FV (FV0) + (FVW)xFFVSFxFFVRC

FV =Free Flow Speed,

FV0 =Basic Free Flow Speed,

=Road Width adjustment factor

FFVSF = Side Friction adjustment factor,

FFVRC =Road Class and Land Use Type adjustment factor

 Side Side
No Length (km) Width (m) Terrain Function Development Friction Fvo FVw FFVsf FF FV
1 9.77 14 flat 50 Medium 78 0 0.92 0.97 69.61
19.38 10 flat Arteri 50 Medium 68 3 0.97 62.67
3 9.62 14 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
4 1.23 16.9 flat Arteri 75 High 78 ? 0.88 0.96 67.58
5 0.5 14 flat 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96
6 27.88 14 flat Arteri 50 Medium 78 0 0.92 0.97
7 0.5 9.5 flat Arteri 75 High 68 0.85 0.96 57.12
8 1.5 7 flat 75 High 68 0 0.96 55.49
9 0.75 7.1 flat Arteri 75 High 68 0 0.85 0.96 55.49
10 0.95 14 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.96 65.89
11 33.21 15 flat 50 Medium 78 0 0.92 0.97
12 1.24 14.3 fIat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
13 0.89 14 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
14 0.57 12 flat Arteri 75 High 78 -3 0.88 0.96
15 1.23 13 flat. Arteri 75 High 78 -3 0.88 0.96 63.36
16 4.85 15 flat Arteri 50 Medium 78 0 0.92 0.97 69.61
17 0.45 14.9 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96
18 0.23 13.6 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96
19 1.52 14.5 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
20 1.08 13 flat Arteri 75 High 78 -1 0.96 65.05
21 46.49 7 rolling Arteri 25 Low 61 0 0.96 57.39
22 2.76 7 flat Arteri 25 Low 68 0 0.96 0.98 63.97
23 16.37 7.4 flat Arteri 25 Low 68 0 0.96 63.97
24 19 14 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 65.89
25 1.96 14 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
26 1.08 14 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 65.89
27 2.12 14 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
28 2.4 24 flat Arteri 75 High 83 -3 0.91 69.89
29 9.34 14 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
30 16.79 14 rolling Arteri 75 High 68 0 0.85 55.49
31 1 10 flat Arteri 75 High 68 0.85
3 0.96 57.94
32 4 15 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
33 0.65 15 flat Arteri 75 High 78 2 0.96 67.58
34 0.9 16 flat Arteri 75 High 78 2 0.88 0.96 67.58
35 2.3 14 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
36 1.2 16 flat Arteri 75 High 78 2 0.96 67.58
37 8.9 14 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0.88 0.96 65.89
38 17.7 7 rolling Arteri 25 Low 61 0 0.96 57.39
39 10.24 7.2 rolling 25 Low 61 0 0.96 0.98 57.39
40 9.68 8.4 roIling Arteri 25 Low 61 1 0.96 0.98 58.33
41 3.2 7 fIat 50 Medium 68 0 0.91 0.97 60.02
42 5.81 7.1 flat Arteri 50 Medium 68 0 0.91 0.97 60.02
43 5.08 7.2 flat Arteri 50 Medium 68 0 0.91 0.97
44 3.6 8.4 flat 50 Medium 68 2 0.91 61.79
45 2.66 9.6 flat 50 Medium 68 3 0.91 62.67
46 2.6 11.3 flat \rteri 50 Medium 68 0.97 62.67
47 24.26 7 roIling 50 Medium 61 0 0.91 0.97
48 12.16 7.4 roIling 50 Medium 61 0.91
0 0.97 53.84
49 2.95 11.9 flat 75 High 78 -3 0.88 0.96 63.36
50 8.35 8 flat 50 Medium 68 1 0.91 0.97 60.91
51 0.8 10.6 flat Arteri 50 Medium 68 0.91
3 0.97 62.67
 _____ _____ _____

No Len th km Width m Side Side

Terrain Function Develo men Friction
52 Fvo FVw FFVsf FFVrc FV
2.2 9.5roflin rterj 50Medjurn 61 2 0.91
53 12.3 8flat 0.97 55.61
rteri 50Medjum
54 68 1 0.91 0.97
15.5 10 flat 60.9i
Arteri 50 Medium
55 68 3 0.91 0.97
22.2 lOflat 62.67
rteri S0Medium
56 68 0.91 0.97
17.65 lOflat 62.67
Arteri 50 Medium
57 68 3 0.91 0.97
5.7 l4flat 62.67
Arterj 50Medium
58 78 0 0.92
4.9 9flat 0.97 69.61
Arteri 75Hi h
59 68 2 0.85 0.96
0.9 9flat 57.12
Arteri 75 High
60 68 2 0.85 0.96
10 9flat 57.12
Arteri 75Hi h
61 68 2 0.85 0.96
1.4 14 flat 57.12
Arteri 75Hj h
62 78 0 0.88
1.3 8flat 0.96 65.89
Arteri 75Hi h
63 68 1 0.85 0.96
2 17.1 flat 56.30
Arteri 75Hi h
64 78 2 0.88
24.5 8flat 0.96 67.58
Arteri 75 High
65 68 0.85
17.7 11 fIat
1
0.96 56.30
Arteri 50 Medium
66 68 3 0.91
11.5 8flat 0.97 62.67
Arteri 50Medium
67 68 0.91
0.5 14 flat
1
0.97 60.91
Arteri 50 Medium
68 78 0 0.92
1.1 l4fJat 0.97 69.61
Arteri S0Medium
69 78 0 0.92 0.97
0.78 l4flat 69.61
Arteri S0Medium
70 78 0 0.92
28.3 7flat 0.97 69.61
rteri 50Medjum
71 68 0 0.91
35.21 7flat 0.97 60.02
Arteri 50Medium
72 68 0 0.91
10.3 7flat 0.97 60.02
Arteri 5OMedium
73 68 0 0.91 0.97
13.5 6.2flat 60.02
rteri 50Medium
74 68 -3 0.91
50.96 6flat 0.97 57.38
Arteri 25Low
75 68 -3 0.96
22.14 6flat 0.98 61.15
Arteri 25Low
76 68 -3 0.96
11.6 7.2flat 0.98 61.15
rteri 25Low
77 68 0 0.96
18.43 6flat 0.98 63.97
Arteri 25Low
78 68 -3 0.96
5.82 6flat 0.98 61.15
Arteri 75Hi h
79 68 -3 0.85
4.4 l7flat 0.96 53.04
Arteri 75Hi h
80 78 2 0.88
10 6flat 0.96 67.58
Arteri 75H1 h
81 68 -3 0.85 0.96
15.27 5.2 flat 53.04
Arterj 50 Medium
82 68 -11 0.91 0.97
21.03 6flat 50.31
Arterj 50 Medium
83 68 -3 0.91 0.97
2 8 flat Arteri 57.38
50 Medium 68
84 12.99 1 0.91 0.97 60.91
7flat Arteri 50Medium 68 0
85 8.59 0.91 0.97 60.02
6flat Arteri 50 Medium 68 -3
86 30.53 0.91 0.97 57.38
7flat Arteri 50Medium 68 0
87 19.44 0.91 0.97 60.02
7flat Arteri 50Medium 68 0
88 18.23 0.91 0.97 60.02
6flat Arteri 50Medium 68 -3
89 31.16 0.91 0.97 57.38
5.6rollin Arteri 25 Low 61 -2
90 17.43 0.96 0.98 55.51
ll.7rolling Arteri 25Low 61 -2
91 0.95 0.96 0.98 55.51
6roflin Arterj 25Low 61 -3
92 16.8 0.96 0.98 54.57
7 roIling Arteri 25 Low 61 0
93 12 0.96 0.98 57.39
6.8rollin Arteri 25Low 61
94 12.65 0 0.96 0.98 57.39
7flat Arteri 25Low 68 0
95 8.23 0.96 0.98 63.97
7flat Arteri 25Low 68 0
96 11.79 0.96 0.98 63.97
7.6flat Arteri 25Low 68
97 11.35 1 0.96 0.98 64.92
5.Srollin Arteri 25Low 61 -9
98 9.65 0.96 0.98 48.92
5.Srollin en 25 Low 65 -9
99 1.13 0.96 0.98 52.68
7.2rollin rteri_____ 25Low 61 0
100 4.87 0.96 0.98 57.39
5rollin rteri_______ 25 Low 61 -9
101 5.95 0.96 0.98 48.92
6.5flat rteri 25Low 68 -3
102 5.62 0.96 0.98 61.15
8.7flat en_______ 25Low 68. 2
103 6.76 0.96 0.98 65.86
6flat Arteri 25Low 68 -3 0.96 0.98 61.15
Side Side
No Length (km) Width (m Terrain Function Develo men Friction Fvo FVw FFVsf FV
FFVrc
 104 20.2 7 flat Arteri 25 Low 6 0 0.9 0.98 - 63.97
105 18.24 14 flat Arteri 50 Medium 78 0 0.92 0.97 6961
106 0.35 11 flat Arteri 75 High 68 3 0.85 0.96 57.94
107 1.05 14 flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
108 1.6 l4flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
109 1 l4flat Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 6589
110 1.15 l5flat Arteri 75High 78 2 0.96 67.58
111 1.2 14 at Arteri 75 High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
112 5.82 l4flat Arteri 75High 78 0 0.88 0.96 65.89
113 5.05 l2flat Arteri 50Medium 78 -3 0.97 66.93
114 13.94 7flat Arteri 50Medium - 0 0.91 0.97
115 2.65 7flat Arteri 50Medium 68 0 0.91 0.97
116 2.43 7flat Arteri 50 Medium 68 0 0.91 0.97
117 14.91 l2flat Arteri 78 -3 0.92 0.97 66.93
118 9.61 l2flat Arteri 50Medium -3 0.92 0.97 66.93
119 31.58 l2flat Arteri 50Medium 78 -3 0.92 0.97 66.93
120 47.06 11 flat Arteri 50 Medium 68 3 0.91 0.97 6267
121 6.25 6.1 flat Arteri 50 Medium 68 0.91 0.97 57.38
122 29 Arteri 50 Medium 68 0.91 0.97
123 13.74 Arteri 50Medium 68 0 0.91 0.97 60.02
124 1.33 12.5 flat kolektor 75 78 -3 0.88 0.93 61.38
125 3.05 l2flat kolektor 75 78 -3 0.88 0.93 61.38
126 1.2 olektor 68 -3 0.85 0.9 49.73
127 1.85 14.2 flat kolektor 75 High 0 0.88 0.93 63.84
128 3.2 lOflat kolektor 75High 68 3 0.85 0.9 54.32
129 3.3 9.3flat kolektor 75High 68 2 0.85 0.9 53.55
130 7.92 kolektor 50 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
131 28.84 kolektor 50Medium 0 0.91 0.91 56.31
132 28.13 olektor 50 Medium -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
133 31.96 50Medium 68 -2 0.91 0.91 54.65
134 11.14 50Medium -2 0.91 0.91 54.65
135 17.01 6.9flat kolektor 5OMedium 68 0 0.91 0.91 56.31
136 5.71 kolektor 50Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
137 9.19 kolektor 50 Medium 68 -11 0.91 0.91 47.20
138 7.59 8.9flat kolektor SOMedium 68 2 0.91 0.91 57.97
139 9.5 kolektor 2 0.85 09 53.55
140 7.25 kolektor 68 2 0.85 0.9 53.55
141 7.8 kolektor 75High 68 2 0.85 0.9 53.55
142 8.65 4.6flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -11 0.91 0.91 47.20
143 5.83 9.2flat kolektor 50 Medium 68 2 0.91 0.91 57.97
144 2.68 6flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
145 5.03 6flat kolektor 50 Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
146 5.73 6flat kolektor 50Medium 68 0 0.91 0.91 56.31
147 9.85 7.3 rolling kolektor 50 Medium 61 0 0.91 0.91 50.51
148 14.32 kolektor 5PMedium 61 0 0.91 0.91 50.51
149 16.68 5rolling kolektor 5OMedium 61 -9 0.91 0.91 43.06
150 38.17 5rolling kolektor SOMedium 61 -9 0.91 0.91 43.06
151 32.83 5rolling kolektor S0Mediurn 61 -9 0.91 0.91 43.06
152 8.27 Srolling kolektor 61 -9 0.91 0.91 43.06
153 10.6 5rolling kolektor 50 Medium -9 0.91 0.91 43.06
154 8.44 4.3rolling kolektor 5OMedium -9 0.91 0.91 43.06
155 19.81 5 roIling kolektor 50 Medium
156 24.4 5 rolling colektor 50 Medium 61 -9 0.91 0.91 43.06

Side 'Side I I I I

1No Length (km) Width (m) Terrain Function Fvo IFFVsI JFFVrc
157 24 5 kolektor 50 Medium 61 -c 0.91 0.91 43.06
158 4.9 Sflat kolektor 50Medium 68 -11 0.91 0.91 47.20
159 8.68 6.3 lat kolektor 50 Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
160 7.85 4.2flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -11 0.91 0.91
161 14.65 5.Sflat kolektor 50Medium 68 -11 0.91 0.91
162 0.6 8.9flat kolektor 75 High 68 2 0.85 0.91 54.15
163 2.6 8.5flat kolektor 75High 68 1 0.85 0.91
164 2.45 7flat kolektor 75High 68 0 0.85 0.91
165 25.05 4.5rolling kolektor 75High 61 -9 0.85 0.91
166 15 Srolling olektor 75High 61 -9 0.85 0.91
167 2.15 5flat kolektor 75High 68 -11 0.91 44.09
168 1.9 11 flat kolektor 75 High 68 3 0.85 0.91 54.92
169 17.96 7flat kolektor 75High 68 0 0.85 0.91 52.60
170 8.18 5.1 flat kolektor 50 Medium 68 -11 0.91 0.91
171 12.04 5.Sflat kolektor 50 Medium 68 -11 0.91 0.91 0
172 8.05 9.1 flat kolektor 50 Medium 68 2 0.91 0.91
173 13.1 l2rolling kolektor 50Medium 68 -2 0.91 0.91
174 20.7 7rolling kolektor 50Medium 61 0 0.91 0.91 so.si
175 0.6 l4flat kolektor 5OMedium 78 0 0.91 0.94 2
176 7.05 14 flat kolektor 50 Medium 78 0 0.91 0.94 66.72
177 3.36 l4flat kolektor 50Medium 78 0 0.91 0.94 66.72
178 19.96 7flat kolektor S0Medium 68 0 0.91 0.91 56.31
179 11.38 6flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
180 7.18 6flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
181 16.8 6flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
182 19.65 6flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
183 43.5 6flat kolektor S0Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
184 12.05 6flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
185 6.6 7flat kolektor 50 Medium 68 0 0.91 0.91 56.31
186 8.52 7flat kolektor S0Medium 68 0 0.91 0.91 56.31
187 3.8 7flat kolektor 50Medium 68 0 0.91 0.91 56.31
188 26.33 6flat kolektor 50 Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
189 25.3 6flat kolektor SOMedium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
190 11.15 6flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
191 32.4 6flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
192 0.59 7flat kolektor S0Medium 68 0 0.91 0.91 56.31
193 23.75 5flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -11 0.91 47.20
194 44.5 5flat kolektor S0Medium 68 -11 0.91 0.91 47.20
195 15.77 5.3flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -11 0.91 0.91
196 26.88 5flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -11 0.91 0.91 47.20
197 21.3 5flat kolektor 50Mediurn 68 -11 0.91 0.91 47.20
198 28.8 5flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -11 091 0.91 47.20
199 13.4 6flat kolektor 5OMedium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 53.83
200 18.3 5flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -11 0.91 0.91
201 37.1 6flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -3 0.91 53.83
202 24.42 8flat kolektor 50Medium 68 1 0.91 57.14
203 4.9 7flat ko!ektor 50 Medium 68 0 0.91 0.91
204 9.4 6.1 flat kolektor 50 Medium 68 -3 0.91 53.63
205 34.86 7flat kolektor 50Medium 68 0 0.91 0.91
206 10.13 8flat kolektor 50 Medium 68 0.91
1 57.14
207 1.3 13.1 flat kolektor 75 High 78 0.88
-1 0.93
208 1.9 12.1 flat ko!ektor 75 High 78 0.88
0 0.93 63.84
209 0.8 10.7 flat kolektor 68 0.85
3 0.9 54.32

'Side Side I I

No Length (km) Width (m) Function Fvo IFVw IFFVsf IFFVrC

21C 2 7.2 flat kolektor Hiah 68 0 0.85 0.9 52.02
211 0.8 7.1 flat kolektor 75 High 68 0 0.85
212 9.29 kolektor 50Medium 61 1 0.91 0.91 51.34
213 8.92 8rolling__ kolektor 5(1 Medium 61 0.91 0.91
1
51.34
214 51.37 7flat kotektor 50 MedIum 68 0 0.91 0.91 5631
215 37 6.1 flat kolektor 50 Medium 68 -3 0.91 0.91 5383
216 17.1 5flat kolektor 50Medium 68 -11 0.91 0,91 4720
217 17.9 6flat kolektor 50 Medium 68 0.91 0.91 5383
218 31 5.4flat 5OMedium 68 -11 0.91 0.91 4720
219 9.1 5flat kolektor 50 Medium '68 -11 0.91 0.91 47.20
220 13.49 kolektor 25 Low 55 -2 0.96 0.93 4732
221 15.5 7montajnous kolektor 25 Low 55 0 0.96 0.93
222 15.52 8.4rolIing kolektor 25Low 61 1 0.96 0.93 55,35
223 10.2 6flat kolektor 25Low 68 -3 0.96 0.93 58.03
224 25.5 Sflat kolektor 25 Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
225 33.21 8.2flat kolektor 25Low 68 1 0.96 0.93 61.60
226 26.72 5.1 flat kolektor 25 Low -11 0.96 0.93
227 17 kolektor 25Low 68 0 0.96 0.93
228 52.4 kolektor 25Low 61 -2 0.96 0.93 5268
229 13.45 8.8flat kolektor 25Low 2 0.96 0.93 62.50
230 8.2 5.5flat kolektor 25 Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
231 6.5 kolektor 25 Low -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
232 19.57 5.5montainous kolektor 25Low 55 -9 0,93 4107
233 13.95 5montainous kolektor 25Low -9 0.96 0.93 41.07
234 15.3 kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
235 12.21 kolektor 25Low 61 -9 0.96 0.93 46.43
236 9.5 kolektor 25Low -2 0.96 0.93 52.68
237 12.25 kolektor 25 Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
238 29.3 6.4roHing kolektor 25Low -2 0.96 0.93 52.68
239 9.55 5.3flat kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
240 17.73 kolektor 25Low 61 -9 0.96 0.93 46.43
241 41.1 kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
242 12.8 kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
243 35.05 kofektor 25Low 61 -9 0.96 0.93 46.43
244 18.7 kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
245 24.08 kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
246 17.92 kolektor 25Low -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
247 11.8 kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
248 15.4 kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
249 25.81 kolektor 25Low 61 -2 0.96 0.93 52.68
250 28.1 4 roIling kolektor 25 Low 61 -9 0.96 0.93 46.43
251 18.1 kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
252 23.91 4.Sflat kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
253 28.18 4.5flat kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
254 33.15 4.75flat kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
255 18.89 kolektor 25Low 68 -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
256 20.16 kolektor 25 Low -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
257 31.3 5flat kolektor 25Low -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
258 11.15 5flat kolektor 25 Low 68 -11 0.93 50.89
259 31.75 5flat kolektor 25Low -11 0.96 0.93 50.89
260 23.9 6flat kolektor 25Low 68 -3 0.96 0.93 58.03
261 3 6flat kolektor 25 Low 68 -3 0.96 0.93 58.03
262 25.51 5rolling kolektor 25Low 61

Side 'Side I I

Length (km) Width (m) Terrain Function IFvo FV 1

FVw JFFVsf FFVrc
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.93
An Example of TraffikPlan.Net file for Generating Network
 122 = NUMBER OF NODES
NODES NO. X-COORD Y-COORD
10 18.50 18.00
11 21.00 18.00
12 22.00 18.30
13 23.50 18.00
14 25.50, 18.00
15 29.00 18.00
16 1.00 17.00
17 2.00 17.00
18 4.00 17.00
19 5.00 17.00
20 7.50 17.00
21 10.00 17.00
22 10.50 17.00
23 11.30 17.00
24 15.00 17.00
25 16.50 17.00
26 18.50 17.00
27 21.00 17.00
28 22.30 17.00
29 23.30 17.00
30 25.50 17.00
31 29.00 17.00
32 32.00 17.00
33 2.00 15.50
34 5.00 15.50
35 6.00 15.50
36 7.50 15.00
37 10.50 15.00
38 12.00 15.00
39 15.30 15.00
40 18.50 15.00
41 19.50 15.00
42 21.50 15.80
43 23.00 15.50
44 24.50 15.50
45 26.80 15.20
46 29.40 15.50
47 30.40 15.50
48 4.00 13.00
49 7.50 14.00
50 18.50 14.50
51 23.50 14.20
52 24.50 15.00
53 31.80 14.00
54 11.20 12.00
55 15.30 12.00
56 19.50 13.50
57 20.30 12.80
58 21.30 12.80
59 25.30 12.20
60 26.00 11.50
61 28.00 12.00
62 7.50 10.50
63 8.50 10.50
64 11.10 10.00
65 13.00 9.80
66 13.80 10.20
 67 16.80 11. 50
68 16.80 10. 50
69 17 .50 10.70
70 6.50 8.00
71 6.50 9.00
72 7 .50 9.00
73 8.00 8.00
74 9.50 9.00
76 13.00 9.00
77 15.00 8 . 60
78 16.50 8.20
79 17.50 8.20
80 18 . 00 9.40
81 19.00 9.40
82 18 .50 8 .20
83 20. 00 8.00
84 21.00 7.20
85 21.20 9.00
86 22 . 00 9.80
87 23.20 9.00
88 23.80 9.80
89 24.50 9.00
90 25.00 9.00
91 26.00 9.00
92 26.80 9.80
93 2 . 00 6.50
94 4.80 6.50
95 5.70 6.50
96 6.40 6.50
97 7 .50 6.50
98 11.80 6.50
99 11.80 5.50
100 13.20 6.50
101 14 .20 6.50
102 15.50 6.50
103 15.50 5.50
104 19.00 6.00
105 22.50 7 .00
106 24 .50 8 . 00
107 25. 50 8 . 00
108 25 . 20 6.50
109 25.20 5.50
110 26.00 6.00
111 29.00 5.80
112 6.00 4 .80
113 4 .80 3.00
114 4 .80 2 . 00
115 20.80 10.80
116 24.50 11.90
117 4.80 8.00
118 28 .00 8.20
119 4.80 3.80
120 12.30 9.80
121 16.00 7 .30
122 32 .80 13.20
201 22. 00 21 .00
202 22.00 20.00
203 4 .00 18 .00
204 5.00 18.00
205 7.50 18 .00
206 10. 00 18 .00
An Example of TrafikPlan.QED file

For Base Year Traffic Flow

 328 = no. of directional links in
110 NO OBSERVED TRAFFIC DATA network

Link
no.
Road
type
i j Dist
m
Free TT
MODELLED
Flow Truck T-Time
OBSERVED
Flow Truck T-Tjme
mm/km veh/h % mm/km veh/h
1 2]. 14 30 %
1000 1.57 132 5.0
2 21 30
1.57 * * *
14 1000 1.00 112 5.0 1.00 * *
3 22 12 28 1900 1.48 87
*
5.0 1.48 * *
4 22 28 12 1900 1.60 79
*
5.0 1.60 * *
5 22 12 29 1700 1.45 13
*
5.0 1.45 * *
6 22 29 12 1700 2.52 21
*
5.0 2.52 * *
7 51 16 17 1000 1.00 132
*
10.0 1.00 * *
8 51 17 16 1000 1.00 141
*
10.0 1.00 * *
9 51 17 18 1900 1.47 148
*
10.0 1.47 * *
10 51 18 17 1900 1.47 167
*
10.0 1.47 * *
11 52 18 19 1000 0.75 102
*
12 10.0 0.75 * *
52 19 18 1000 1.00 *
219 10.0 1.00 * *
13 32 19 20 2800 1.12 197
*
10.0 1.14 * *
14 32 20 19 2800 2.12 226
*
10.0 2.16 * *
15 32 20 21 3300 2.49 *
354 10.0 2.56 * *
16 32 21 20 3300 2.49 437
*
10.0 2.56 * *
17 32 21 300 1.00 412
*
10.0 1.00 * *
18 32 22 21 300 1.00 *
514 10.0 1.00 * *
19 32 22 23 500 1.00 454
*
10.0 1.00 * *
20 32 23 22 500 1.00 576
*
10.0 1.00 * *
21 31 23 24 4900 1.11 490
*
10.0 1.25 * *
22 31 24 23 4900 2.18 639
*
23 10.0 2.52 * *
31 24 25 1600 1.25 456 10.0 1.38 * *
24 31 25 24 1600 1.00 *
605 10.0 1.00 * *
25 32 25 2400 6.08 486 10.0 6.36 *
26 32 26 25 2400 * *
1.00 659 10.0 1.05 *
27 32 26 27 2400 *
1.83 527 10.0 1.90 *
28 32 27 26 2400 *
6.08 558 10.0 6.31 *
29 32 27 1300 * *
2.00 399 10.0 2.07 *
30 32 28 1300 * *
1.00 430 10.0 1.02 *
31 31 28 29 1000 *
1.57 311 10.0 1.63 *
32 31 29 1000 * *
1.00 341 10.0 1.00 *
33 32 29 30 * *
2200 1.00 240 10.0
34 32 30 1.00 * * *
2200 1.67 270 10.0
35 31 30 1.69 * * *
3200 1.00 160 10.0
36 31 31 1.00 * * *
3200 1.52 192 10.0
37 31 31 1.55 * * *
1000 1.00 0 10.0
38 31 32 1.00 * * *
31 1000 1.00 0 10.0 1.00 * *
39 21 10 26 1000 1.00 *
169 5.0 1.00 * *
40 21 26 1000 1.00 *
120 5.0 1.00 * *
41 21 11 27 1000 1.00 *
122 5.0 1.00 * *
42 21 27 11 1000 1.00 *
112 5.0 1.00 * *
43 21 13 29 1000 1.57 *
115 5.0 1.57 * *
44 21 29 13 1000 1.00 *
135 5.0 1.00 * *
45 21 15 1000 1.00 *
134 5.0 1.00 * *
46 21 31 1000 1.00 *
114 5.0 1.00 * *
47 23 17 33 900 1.00 *
48
0 5.0 1.00 * * *
23 33 900 1.33
49
0 5.0 1.33 * * *
31 19 34 1200 1.00 196 10.0 1.00 * *
50 31 34 19 1200 1.00 *
268 10.0 1.00 * *
51 23 33 2884 2.99 *
52
0 5.0 2.99 * * *
23 34 33 2884 3.97
53
0 5.0 3.97 * * *
21 34 35 1000 1.00 126 5.0 1.00 * *
54 21 35 34 1000 1.57 *
200 5.0 1.57 * *
55 22 33 48 2900 1.90 *
56 22
0 5.0 1.90 * * *
48 33 2900 4.15
57 31
0 5.0 4.15 * * *
34 48 3000 1.00 102 10.0 1.00 * *
58 31 48 34 3000 2.28 *
100 10.0 2.30 *
59 31 48 117 4500 1.55
* *
101 10.0 1.57 *
60
 61 22 20 36 1700 1.00 24 5.0 1.00 * * *
62 22 36 20 1700 1.00 30 5.0 1.00 * * *
63 22 36 49 1500 1.00 23 5.0 1.00 * * *
64 22 49 36 1500 2.15 30 5.0 2.15 * * *
65 21 49 34 3330 5.13 19 5.0 5.13 * * *
66 21 34 49 3330 1.40 19 5.0 1.40 * * *
67 22 49 62 3900 5.62 43 5.0 5.62 * * *
68 22 62 49 3900 6.24 49 5.0 6.24 * * *
69 21 36 37 3260 1.75 0 5.0 1.75 * * *
70 21 37 36 3260 1.75 5.0 1.75. * *
0 *
71 21 37 38 3013 3.89 0 5.0 3.89 * * *
72 21 38 37 3013 1.61 0 5.0 1.61 * * *
73 21 38 39 5100 7.85 0 5.0 7.85 * * *
74 21 39 38 5100 2.61 0 5.0 2.61 * * *
75 21 39 40 5200 2.40 0 5.0 2.40 * * *
76 21 40 39 5200 8.00 0 5.0 8.00 * * *
77 21 40 41 1000 1.00 118 5.0 1.00 * * *
78 21 41 40 1000 1.04 152 5.0 1.04 * * *
79 22 21 37 1800 1.00 9 5.0 1.00 * * *
80 22 37 21 1800 1.00 9 5.0 1.00 * * *
81 22 23 38 2000 1.00 0 5.0 1.00 * * *
82 22 38 23 2000 1.61 0 5.0 1.61 * * *
83 22 24 39 2440 1.00 46 5.0 1.00 * * *
84 22 39 24 2440 1.19 46 5.0 1.19 * * *
85 32 26 40 1000 1.00 703 10.0 1.00 * * *
86 32 40 26 1000 1.00 795 10.0 1.00 * * *
87 32 40 50 300 1.00 516 10.0 1.00 * * *
88 32 50 40 300 1.00 573 10.0 1.00 * * *
89 22 26 42 3100 1.82 0 5.0 1.82 * * *
90 22 42 26 3100 1.86 0 5.0 1.86 * * *
91 22 42 43 1300 1.00 0 5.0 1.00 * * *
92 22 43 42 1300 1.90 0 5.0 1.90 * * *
93 22 43 52 1830 2.64 67 5.0 2.64 * * *
94 22 52 43 1830 8.72 67 5.0 8.72 * * *
95 22 27 43 2000 2.87 67 5.0 2.87 * * *
96 22 43 27 2000 1.00 67 5.0 1.00 * * *
97 21 51 52 1000 1.21 123 5.0 1.21 * * *
98 21 52 51 1000 1.00 116 5.0 1.00 * * *
99 22 52 44 800 1.00 12 5.0 1.00 * * *
100 22 44 52 800 1.00 14 5.0 1.00 * * *
101 22 29 44 3500 2.52 4 5.0 2.52 * * *
102 22 44 29 3500 6.28 4 5.0 6.28 * * *
103 22 30 44 3300 1.35 10 5.0 1.35 * * *
104 22 44 30 3300 1.44 8 5.0 144 * * *
105 22 45 52 2000 1.45 8 5.0 1.45 * * *
106 22 52 45 2000 1.00 10 5.0 1.00 * * *
107 22 45 46 4600 1.65 38 5.0 1.65 * * *
108 22 46 45 4600 1.00 38 5.0 1.00 * * *
109 21 46 47 1000 1.00 92 5.0 1.00 * * *
110 21 47 46 1000 1.57 87 5.0 1.57 * * *
111 22 31 46 3700 1.45 68 5.0 1.45 * * *
112 22 46 31 3700 1.56 68 5.0 1.56 * * *
113 22 46 53 3400 4.87 0 5.0 4.87 * * *
114 22 53 46 3400 1.68 0 5.0 1.68 * * *
115 21 113 114 1000 1.00 130 5.0 1.00 * * *
116 21 114 113 1000 1.00 118 5.0 1.00 * * *
117 32 113 119 440 1.00 132 10.0 1.00 * * *
118 32 119 113 440 1.00 130 10.0 1.00 * * *
119 31 94 119 3200 1.00 31 10.0 1.00 * * *
120 31 119 94 3200 8.11 26 1.0.0 8.11 * * *
121 31 94 117 1300 1.00 72 10.0 1.00 * * *
122 31 117 94 1300 1.29 74 10.0 1.29 * * *
123 21 93 94 1000 1.57 0 5.0 1.57 * * *
124 21 94 93 1000 1.00 0 5.0 1.00 * * *
125 31 94 95 1200 1.00 43 10.0 1.00 * * *
126 31 95 94 1200 1.19 45 10.0 1.19 * * *
127 32 95 96 200 1.00 118 10.0 1.00 * * *
128 32 96 95 200 1.00 143 10.0 1.00 * * *
129 31 112 119 1000 1.00 98 10.0 1.00 * * *
130 31 119 112 1000 1.00 75 10.0 1.00 * * *
131 22 97 112 2016 2.88 0 5.0 2.88 * * *
132 22 112 97 2016 1.00 0 5.0 1.00 * * *
133 31 95 112 1300 1.00 98 10.0 1.00 * * *
134 31 112 95 1300 1.00 75 10.0 1.00 * * *
135 31 96 97 1300 1.00 174 10.0 1.00 * * *
136 31 97 96 1300 1.00 201 10.0 1.00 * * *
137 22 70 96 1700 2.80 62 5.0 2.80 * * *
138 22 96 70 1.700 1.00 63 5.0 1.00 * * *
139 21 70 71 1000 1.00 86 5.0 1.00 * * *
140 21 71 70 1000 1.57 126 5.0 1.57 * * *
141 22 70 117 1700 2.52 28 5.0 2.52 * * *
142 22 117 70 1700 2.52 26 5.0 2.52 * * *
143 23 70 72 950 1.00 12 5.0 1.00 * * *
144 23 72 70 950 1.00 12 5.0 1.00 * * *
145 22 62 72 1100 1.00 46 5.0 1.00 * * *
146 22 72 62 1100 1.57 47 5.0 1.57 * * *
147 21 62 63 1000 1.00 74 5.0 1.00 * * *
148 21 63 62 1000 1.00 82 5.0 1.00 * * *
149 22 62 74 1500 2.23 51 5.0 2.23 * * *
150 22 74 62 1500 1.00 57 5.0 1.00 * * *
151 23 72 73 900 1.00 33 5.0 1.00 * *
152 23 73 72 900 1.22 35 5.0 1.22 * * *
153 22 73 97 860 1.26 42 5.0 1.26 * * *
154 22 97 73 860 1.00 43 5.0 1.00 * *
155 21 73 74 1803 2.56 8 5.0 2.56 * * *
156 21 74 73 1803 2.77 8 5.0 2.77 * * *
157 21 64 74 3100 3.17 65 5.0 3.17 * * *
158 21 74 64 3100 4.83 59 5.0 4.83 * * *
159 21 64 120 1700 1.00 109 5.0 1.00 * * *
160 21 120 64 1700 1.59 116 5.0 1.59 * * *
161 21 100 120 5000 2.64 7 5.0 2.64 * * *
162 21 120 100 5000 7.73 7 5.0 7.73 * *
163 21 65 120 1000 1.58 115 5.0 1.58 * * *
164 21 120 65 1000 1.57 108 5.0 1.57 * * *
165 21 65 76 1000 1.00 102 5.0 1.00 * * *
166 21 76 65 1000 1.74 102 5.0 1.74 * * *
167 21 37 54 5400 9.19 9 5.0 9.19 * * *
168 21 54 37 5400 4.15 9 5.0 4.15 * *
169 21 54 64 2930 2.26 9 5.0 2.26 * *
170 21 64 54 2930 4.98 9 5.0 4.98 * * *
171 21 54 65 5200 8.00 0 5.0 8.00 * * *
172 21 65 54 5200 6.48 0 5.0 6.48 * *
173 21 65 66 900 1.00 176 5.0 1.00 * * *
174 21 66 65 900 1.42 182 5.0 1.42 * * *
175 21 55 66 2000 2.52 176 5.0 2.52 * * *
176 21 66 55 2000 1.00 169 5.0 1.00 * * *
177 22 39 55 2400 3.21 46 5.0 3.21 * * *
178 22 55 39 2400 2.03 46 5.0 2.03 * *
179 21 55 67 900 1.42 165 5.0 1.42 * * *
180 21 67 55 900 1.00 172 5.0 1.00 * * *
181 21 67 68 1000 1.00 62 5.0 1.00 * *
182 21 68 67 1000 1.57 78 5.0 1.57 * * *
183 21 67 69 1238 2.05 202 5.0 2.05 * *
184 21 69 67 1238 1.76 208 5.0 1.76 * *
185 21 50 67 4200 7.18 0 5.0 7.18 * *
186 21 67 50 4200 7.15 0 5.0 * *
187 31 56 69 3300 3.12 365 10.0 3.29 * *
188 31 69 56 3300 1.49 335 10.0 1.57 * *
189 31 50 56 800 1.00 716 10.0 1.00 * * *
190 31 56 50 800 1.00 775 10.0 1.00 * *
191 31 69 80 1100 1.00 320 10.0 1.00 * * *
192 31 80 69 1100
 193 21 80 81 1.00
194 21
101 5.0 1.00 * * *
81 80
1000 1.00
195 31
102 5.0 1.00 * * *
56 57
1000 1.00
196
428 10.0 1.00 * * *
31 57 56 1000 1.00
197 21
518 10.0 1.00 * * *
57 58 1000 1.00
198
118 5.0 1.00 * * *
21 58 57 1000 1.00
199
150 5.0 1.00 * * *
21 57 80 3900 6.00
200
0 5.0 6.00 * * *
21 80 57 3900 5.45
201
0 5.0 545 * * *
31 57 115 1800 1.43 367 10.0 1.53 *
202 31 115 57 1800 * *
1.00 426 10.0 1.00 * *
203 31 85 115 1800 *
1.67 426 10.0 1.79 * *
204 31 115 85 1800 *
1.00 367 10.0 1.00 * *
205 21 85 86 1000 *
1.00 117 5.0 1.00 * *
206 21 86 85 1000 *
1.89 150 5.0 1.89 * *
207 31 80 82 830 *
1.00 96 10.0 1.00 * *
208 31 82 80 830 *
1.00 96 10.0 1.00 * *
209 31 82 104 2800 *
2.30 90 10.0 2.32 * *
210 31 104 82 2800 *
1.00 90 10.0 1.00 * *
211 21 82 85 3500 *
5.40 6 5.0 5.40 * *
212 21 85 82 3500 *
1.95 6 5.0 1.95 * *
213 22 84 85 2550 *
1.66 0 5.0 1.66 * *
214 22 85 84 2550 *
1.29 0 5.0 1.29 * *
215 21 83 84 1000 *
1.00 135 5.0 1.00 * *
216 21 84 83 1000 *
1.00 127 5.0 1.00 * *
217 31 85 87 1800 *
1.00 341 10.0 1.00 * *
218 31 87 85 1800 *
1.00 367 10.0 1.00 * *
219 32 87 89 *
1.00 460 10.0 1.00 * *
220 32 89 87 *
800 1.00 490 10.0 1.00 * *
221 21 88 89 1000 *
1.00 150 5.0 1.00 * *
222 21 89 88 1000 *
1.00 118 5.0 1.00 * *
223 32 89 90 140 *
1.00 214 10.0 1.00 * *
224 32 90 89 140 *
1.00 212 10.0 1.00 * *
225 22 90 91 940 *
1.72 106 5.0 1.72 * *
226 22 91 90 940 *
1.35 142 5.0 1.35 * *
227 21 91 92 1000 *
1.00 106 5.0 1.00 * * *
228 21 92 91 1000 1.00
229
151 5.0 1.00 * * *
21 91 118 1000 1.00 5.0
230 21 118 91
0 1.00 * * *
1000 11.18 0 5.0 11.18 *
231 * *
22 89 116 2900 4.45 20 5.0 *
232 22 116 89 4.45 * *
2900 1.70 20 5.0 1.70 * *
233 22 52 116 3700 *
5.62 20 5.0 5.62 * * *
234 22 116 52 3700 5.31
235
20 5.0 5.31 * * *
31 60 90 2450 2.03
236
122 10.0 2.05 * * *
31 90 60 2450 1.00
237
120 10.0 1.00 * * *
21 59 60 1000 1.00
238
128 5.0 1.00 * * *
21 60 59 1000 1.00
239 22
112 5.0 1.00 * * *
45 60 4000 5.74
240
42 5.0 5.74 * * *
22 60 45 4000 1.82
241
40 5.0 1.82 * * *
22 60 91 3130 3.47
242 22
0 5.0 3.47 * * *
91 60 3130 4.51
243 31 60 61
0 5.0 451 * * *
1000 1.00 174 10.0 1.00 *
244 31 * *
61 60 1000 1.00 152 10.0 1.00 * * *
245 23 115 116 3965 27.08 0 5.0 27.08 *
246 23 116 115 3965
* *
4.17 0 5.0 4.17 * * *
247 31 97 98 5000 19.08
248
194 10.0 19.67 * * *
31 98 97 5000 2.96
249
222 10.0 3.05 * * *
21 98 99 1000 1.00
250
103 5.0 1.00 * * *
21 99 98 1000 1.00
251
112 5.0 1.00 * * *
31 98 100 1680 1.03 235 10.0
252 31 100 98 1.06 * * *
1680 1.55 264 10.0 1.61 *
253 * *
31 100 101 1265 1.00 230 10.0
254 31 101 100 1.00 * * *
1265 1.00 259 10.0 1.00 *
255 * *
31 101 102 1200 1.00 230 10.0
256 31 102 101 1.00 * * *
1200 1.00 259 10.0 1.00 *
257 21 102 103 * *
1000 1.00 116 5.0 1.00 *
258 * *
259 31 102 104 5800 2.67 118 10.0 2.71 * * *
260 31 104 102 5800 3.53 122 10.0 3.58 * * *
261 21 66 77 2000 2.42 9 5.0 2.42 * * *
262 21 77 66 2000 2.62 7 5.0 2.62 * * *
263 21 77 121 1900 1.00 7 5.0 1.00 * * *
264 21 121 77 1900 2.47 7 5.0 2.47 * * *
265 21 77 101 4100 6.37 0 5.0 6.37 * * *
266 21 101 77 4100 1.10 0 5.0 1.10 * * *
267 22 102 121 800 1.48 165 5.0 1.48 * * *
268 22 121 102 800 1.17 190 5.0 1.17 * * *
269 22 78 121 2020 1.03 187 5.0 1.03 * * *
270 22 121 78 2020 1.00 161 5.0 1.00 * * *
271 21 78 79 1000 1.00 106 5.0 1.00 * * *
272 21 79 78 1000 1.00 112 5.0 1.00 * * *
273 22 78 80 2000 1.00 215 5.0 1.00 * * *
274 22 80 78 2000 1.00 240 5.0 1.00 * * *
275 31 84 104 2800 1.00 212 10.0 1.00 * * *
276 31 104 84 2800 1.79 208 10.0 1.83 * * *
277 31 84 87 2220 1.72 248 10.0 1.77 * * *
278 31 87 84 2220 1.00 251 10.0 1.00 * * *
279 22 89 106 1200 1.00 178 5.0 1.00 * * *
280 22 106 89 1200 1.74 194 5.0 1.74 * * *
281 21 106 107 1000 1.00 92 5.0 1.00 * * *
282 21 107 106 1000 1.00 109 5.0 1.00 * * *
283 22 106 108 2000 2.87 142 5.0 2.87 * * *
284 22 108 106 2000 2.89 153 5.0 2.89 * * *
285 22 104 108 9200 3.66 0 5.0 3.66 * * *
286 22 108 104 9200 13.15 0 5.0 13.15 * * *
287 21 108 109 1000 1.00 141 5.0 1.00 * * *
288 21 109 108 1000 1.00 133 5.0 1.00 * * *
289 22 108 110 1000 1.47 0 5.0 1.47 * * *
290 22 110 108 1000 1.47 0 5.0 1.47 * * *
291 21 91 110 4300 6.67 0 5.0 6.67 * * *
292 21 110 91 4300 3.28 0 5.0 3.28 * * *
293 21 110 111 1000 1.00 0 5.0 1.00 * * *
294 21 111 110 1000 1.53 0 5.0 1.53 * * *
295 22 84 105 2900 9.43 0 5.0 943 * * *
296 22 105 84 2900 4.15 0 5.0 4.15 * * *
297 22 105 108 3600 2.87 0 5.0 2.87 * * *
298 22 108 105 3600 2.86 0 5.0 2.86 * * *
299 22 105 106 2400 1.00 0 5.0 1.00 * * *
300 22 106 105 2400 1.20 0 5.0 1.20 * * *
301 22 45 53 6850 2.66 0 5.0 2.66 * * *
302 22 53 45 6850 2.48 0 5.0 2.48 * * *
303 21 53 122 1000 1.00 0 5.0 1.00 * * *
304 21 122 53 1000 1.18 0 5.0 1.18 * * *
305 22 42 57 4550 3.84 0 5.0 3.84 * * *
306 22 57 42 4550 6.60 0 5.0 6.60 * * *
307 21 201 202 1000 3.60 122 5.0 3.60 * * *
308 21 202 201 1000 1.00 202 5.0 1.00 * * *
21 30 202 4151 6.45 3 5.0 6.45 * * *
310 21 202 30 4151 3.79 3 5.0 3.79 * * *
311 21 18 203 1000 1.00 219 5.0 1.00 * * *
312 21 203 18 1000 1.62 162 5.0 1.62 * * *
313 21 19 204 1000 1.00 128 5.0 1.00 * * *
314 21 204 19 1000 1.96 145 5.0 1.96 * * *
315 21 20 205 1000 1.00 126 5.0 1.00 * * *
316 21 205 20 1000 1.57 157 5.0 1.57 * * *
317 21 21 206 1000 1.00 122 5.0 1.00 * * *
318 21 206 21 1000 1.57 102 5.0 1.57 * * *
319 21 22 207 1000 1.00 126 5.0 1.00 * * *
320 21 207 22 1000 1.00 107 5.0 1.00 * * *
321 21 23 208 1000 1.00 128 5.0 1.00 * * *
322 21 208 23 1000 1.57 106 5.0 1.57 * * *
323 21 25 209 1000 1.00 126 5.0 1.00 * * *
324 21 209 25 1000 1.62 132 5.0 1.62 * *
325 21 64 210 1003 1.00 142 5.0 1.00 * * *
326 21 210 64 1003 1.57 126 5.0 1.57 * * *
327 21 12 202 1700 2.60 132 5.0 2.60 * * *
328 21 202 12 1700 2.64 211 5.0 2.64 * * *
 The Modelled 2001 Central Java Passenger Transport Demand (in passenger per year)
14 151 161 Il II IS 2! I 2! 23 24 25 2!

03 73984 93928 157125 4408 8773 76119 431511 138701 15243 40361 63567 53402 173746 34768 264164 95085 182847 342 8 39277 42219 179 109

332963 178311 169145 11862 6514 62668 464521 149311 1640! 4344! 6843! 5748! 187038 3742 284373 123665 237808 37087! 445- 8 32336 45449 233 14

11827 98912 424 2583 3747 25799! 8293! 9112 24131 3800! 3192! 103878 2078! 157936 56072 107826 16816: 2042 462! 39596 11565 2524 lOS 306

10291 244 5144 3794 3269 12 4 9369 02 151728 62534 99559 83! 2984 25546 3 28916 I 71425 6!
2 1175 297 51100 13921 2 9 20194 I 7 39499 6160! 7404 35728 30586 2 62325 33336 38

474 13 3234 10227 3 I 2 335 2 30945 37938 333 6091 13776 103673 564!: 26
1079 42 23057 366! 8 86 I 0138 135028 694 2475 21191 7 57639 25 42373 92
3 314 7 3774 6124 I 4 3 365 294 32999 577 976 10035 112919 4 197773 9!
- 4 - 04 965 I 4 0 479 7 6' 50 668 8826 3 288339 4 1739506 804
I 2 2 2018 I 5 7 6 94 7 76 29 3864 5101 5 303119 2 10053' 46
- 7 202 3 7 585 0 6171 3 469694 3 121625 - 56
- -
7004 4 4 340
857 2 5 417
1010 49! 47393312141071
296 144 174 05707202
132 64 7 815923 08
87 26 4 _2 _2 3 311067657946
240 72 6 7 675755 66035! 7
457 137 I 1109973 63570! 7
333 1 100 7331974199154 I 19444 2 18 2 2 6 394 3 3 I

434 8 131 8975672975753 I I 4 24 72 2 3 7 4 74 4 I

8 684 I 15385205100745 I 2 9 6 4 14 34 84 I 6 8 17 4 2 4 16 7 6

5 5 4 398817 13222214 3 6 5 I 32 38 II 2 209417 16 8 3 I

1 34 I 638019211526' 6 9 8 2 37 4 47 39 5 6 51617 I 6 6 6 52274

- - '
' ' 84477 10467 2 I 9 7894!'
: 24 7 :8 94 3 91 _4 :6 _3 4 5 134701 44658 4 88552 79 10972
2 I 9 _6 4 46 - 2 4 _2 _2 3 83796 2778! 04 4 55088 1430 6826
100573 33344 9! 594 66117 13729 165 8715 539021

155 4 55213 64! 170038 56374 6 94 6 4 26 2 85 10 29 111783 23211 13756 83339'

732 205879 2388 2004061 664421 7 375 2 16 846317 43109 8 1374 596 02 6 I 4 433 2 803]
[3!! 0033 3198 13 2 114957 140304 227 18951:
778 15938
147

114
98 3 3 35119 407 1081541 358571 6 71101 4889 94 14763 17745345 69 8994 2109 109019 108025 92171
 The 2001 Central Java Freight Transport Demand (in Tonnes per year)
19 20 2! 22 23 2 25 2 27 2 29 30 33 34
I 2 3 4 6 7 12

I '124923 611356 21136 718750 547678 19185 9 44144 20! 423968 349170 450243 2087853 48816: 910471 21341 419790 282!! 357547 1131 30'
943830 12081 4S2472 170843 92634 4 980 635080 212960 135665 68352 277 313 2001 89922 3862! 634360 101
2 8018
172011 383! 2166 54728 1131 67339 1517' 28154 1282 ill:
5576 1425267 261865 59629 636 199163 167326 22' 661
4283 12844 101491 7235! 297 331525 1362
4 4609 156701 300418 13714 15400 667294 114675 53046 9 68541 79152 5562
59760 352! 03253 255! 35' 34 4872
5 7520 443917 30134 54528 115074 72614 390884 167 6 22156 87774 55173 8794

17270 2206 2138 3392 135 2!! 20'

204 5 395497 3962 65134 54836 114093 817 122711

7 99969 75467 115031 902649 9480 5631 14512 8899 2 76057 8280 928 1577 5330 904 6784 11201 5276 6921

8 392 67865 6702 90885 6614 356204 395400 7006 IS 12947 8185 243382 9205 1734 32639 327 1916 4742 2206 263 5 686 941

370 5694 2351 1445 156008 52514 324415 538! 455208 122727 1005! 332: 847 16 4140 195 4775!
3328 796!:
5250! 263310 7176 23984 6 445! 3661 2084 522 1982! 3742
1770 29253 8106 4863 570435 47578 68841 221827 8142 523
3392 22 72! 456! 1952
4563 37332 8121 40096 838! 358! 34263! 249684 730146 1321 24

log 272 1474 16 1049! 9!! 534029 496423 573237 2391 528! 6 34! 882 1294

3666 2021 I 17! 88542 37803 688223 13271 10562 109 4 1319 3461

2602: 4! 339! 47268 1361! 648' 74067 63582 562595 198509 139 6 157 753 296954 4&
6188 38036 17993 56210 398' 234 69522 20117! 375635 3 I 2 64 99 2 3727 13374 4998

924 39249 96 619! 77504 406: 36 3 2 156 10 839

39008 318! 109: 2 14 4! 802 5

2271964 5817 1191 2303 34815 9488 07900 484 367 2 267 82 12 475 32 91269 22:
550!! 24338 171 229892 11787 35960 24138 54! 50 157612 45 7 1491 130

613 827 9! 2469! 106296 2713 19455 3!' 40 319 3872 50 70

1435 02 1394 3987 217 10 14 679244 14 714 4 11104

8208! 5899 23500 22122 60737 14539 52 4 76381 62 37 457 129000

18 687 423 152114 24490 24963 98!! 3 7 376 7 192894 374 506
756 2727! 32 224863 11153 10708 1109 4 1670
29 27564 5227 3 644 2512 8 5161 14

4837 17335 6266 974! 71241 4 I 9 1012 7 60 488 2371 27422 42 I 19278
3057 1053' 36 2 1352 I 246 30 3051 948404 8' 292! 678
9! 2304 8986 4!
1431 19195 13651 4 1921 404 82' 489233 6689: lOll 55! 39968
I. 26' 66 19508 9950 4 6 14: 21 6! 93
12169 61 I! 127 623668 45634 60846

3606 2 4 72553 12 9503 75352!' '93! so: 2 370540 4259 358 341287 877: 4592 3141 136902 69' 24067
5300 16090 3598 82902 1474 5586! 882 19101 17! 453 1726 49! 2! 23132 31! 8407!

316917 45 72884 169 1163679 I 2 433533 136843 29516 136076 3810! 58748 44050023743 48524 601314 9962 74' 3621956755 104 1292136 313990 256473 193'

30507 3664' 7 2292 04 3194 24748 2437 143777 2524! 5210 574987 049586 6!
2' '0863 '11804' 26421783671 1 893 258593 1437483 13(

263275 887326 111993 80794 145317 115460 16' 91184 155104253529 77227 11413 63395 15339 21943 54426 228842 331642 52296 45634 40 36821 584 1771 '8332' 041 60023
245517 730783 94041 52375 143762 242734 34: 100278 169718 38998 57571 55226 70876 29253 58002 204769 568290 633813 18116 42765 1437 66091 877 209! 90510 706 96731' 31532 6502F'07088

Source: Ministry of Communications of Indonesia (2002)

 The 2001 Inter Sub Provinces Travel Time (minutes)

ii 21 31 4 8 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

a aol 74 331 77.331 86.00 79 II I.!' 06. 154.67 207.6) 177. '09. 00 '91.31 221.83 '95.31 48.17 '08%' '2633 '6700 '.00!' '93.6" '02.81 166.67 '17.8'
2 74.33 0.00 46.33 82.50 89. 125.67 02.6 164.r' 87. '18. so '87.81 '18.3? '91.81 '44.6' '.06. 96. 13.6 163. 209.6 190.17 199.33 154.00 105.11

3 77.33 46.33 0.00 61.33 91. 23.33 840 '6687 '89. '21. 83 69.17 199.67 173.!' '26.00 97. 17.: 23. 415 144. 212.: 171,50 180.67 145.17 132.56
4 86.00 82.50 61.33 0.00 99. 13.93 355 '25.09 '47. 78. 33 20.6' '51.17 124.67 77.50 151. [77. 0. 163.0 46. 164. 96. 169.1 23.00 132.17 173.50 155,61
79.50 89.00 91.67 99. 4733 114.0 90,82 13.' '45. 01' 61.31 '91.8? '65.31 '39,1' '9! '03 7 7 726 41 59 '19 '363 '63.6''72,83199.50'50
1.17 25.67 123.33 113 4 000 96.6 57.83 111.82 '13 28.5) '59.00 '32.51 '06.3' '59 '076 13 234') 73 190 86. 04.3 130.83 140.00211.33 182.
06.17 102.67 84.00 35. II 9667 00 '04.83 ':7 '58 17 :00.50 131.00 104.50 17.33 '31 '630 8 853 '59 186 76 '495 '02.8? '12.00 66.67 '78
54.67 164.17 166.83 125. 9 5783 1048 009 96. 127 [55.5 4. .5 72. .8 4. 50.5 .00 8632 16.83 90.32 64.17 '65 9605224 44, 118.8 88.67 97,83 169.17 217,
ic,!,,, ,,I,ao ilicii '11.83 130.: 105.33 0.0C 46. 45. 73.5 2. 5 .5 32. .64'201' 03.6" 56.0' 8650 60 0! 88.50 8 135. 4 . 165.6 7. 194. 75. 36.8 43.00 67,50 138.83 186.
.501187.001189.671147. 81.67 1275 96.17 46.50 0. 49. 76.6 5. 6 6 35 8 6 '521 '35.83 '18.67 92.!) 82.83 II 167.3 3. 197,8 226,3 64. 40.! 7517 99671710! 2!%
.171218.67122 1.3 '27.8' 45.83 49.' 0 116,00 89.5" I 'I 646 0 95 25,3 75.50 97,0 68,33 6,
211,.tC t,l,so ii 41.0! 86.: 155.50 73.50 76.6 4 0.0 9. 74.6 48. 7 '44,6' '181) 14417 '4
. ' 6 933 9 7238 5 54.0 101.17 125,6 97.00 244.
.501225.001227.671185. 9.6' 65.0 52.17 55.3 4 69.3 26 '5 '21.6' 95.17121.1712 170,3 6. 200.8 2. 31.0 78.17102,6 7400
.83 230.33 233.00 190. 25,0! 70 3 9,51' 57,50 60.6 6 74.6 0 '6 '27,1''00.6''26.67'' 758 2063 7 36.5 83.67 '08.! 79.50
50274.00255.33 206 23! 99.6' 86,6 '2.50 '32.17 353 ' 1483 0. 79. 82. 39.50 '3,09 '00,50 '45,67 '0 5767 '63 45 096 '17.50 91.0 61,33
83329.33310.67262 728 I 56' '42,0 7.83 '88,6' 91 8 ' 2058 6 .0 8. 93 1 '09 66.8' 26,8' '54.33 '99.50 '6 21! 5 717 9 1690 171,33144,8 5,17
50276.00257.33208 21 58,5 '1.59'44,l'1763 ' 36 2023 04 6 . 0. 39.3 55. 13.06 '3,0900.5045.670 576 '63 5 656 '17,50 91.0 61,33
50 252.00 233.33 184 22 92.6' 64 6 050,20171523 4 178.3 79. 0.0 31.83 89.06 4900 7600 121.67 5 336 '39 4! 5 93,50 67.0 37.33
.00 235.50 216.83 168. 20 76.1' 48,1 '4.00 '03,6' 1358 ' 3 161 8 82. .6 5. 31.8 0,00 72.50 3250 6000 117. 123. 47.6 5. 125. 77,00 50.5 20,83
133287,83269.17220 25 28.5 '00.5' '5,37 '56.00 88 ' 214 19 8 89.0 72,50 0,00 85,17 112.6' '00 3 7 778 '29.67'03.l 73.50
83218.33 199.67 IS!. 91. 59.0! 3! .0! 6,83 86.50 118.6 1 144,6 73' 490 3250 8517 000 4317 8833 30 8 88, 108.3 60,17 33,6 04.00
.33 191.83 173.17 24,6' 65. 32.5! 04.5! 0.33 60.00 92.17 118. Oc (17 76.: 60,0! 12.67 43.17 0.00 62.50 4!. 90.50 96. 2! 0 53. .5 62. 82,5 34.33 22.8 94.17
171144.671126.001 77,5! 06,33 57,33 64,!' 8850 8283 144. 121, 26.6 45.6 .5 45. 105.!' 57,83 88.33 62.50 0,00 89. 136.50 142. 167.0 99. .5 34. 107,6 60.83 70.0 140.17
001206.331197. 50115 I. I' 31,00 6.83 86.50 118.67 144.! 12!. 27. 09. .8 09. 855 68,5! 21.17 5167 41.83 89.00 0. 64.. 3 70, 60.17 35.! 68.00
,331157.671148.831177, I' 07,67 53,00 65,50 '35.1' 67.31 93' '!9 '17.1' 69.8 '00.33 90.50 136.50 64. 0.00 21. 45.83 77. 74.3 136,5 156.6 108,50 84.0 19,00 6
50 151.83 143.00 170.3' 3,5') 58,81 71,33 '41.00 173.17 '99 3 '23.0 75.6 106.17 96.33 142.33 70. 2!. 7 0. 40,00 72. 68,5 142.3 162,5 114.33 89.8 19,50 6!
83127.17117.33163.0' 04,00 85,31 96,00 '65,6' 97.81 723 )002063 08 147.6' :00.. 130.83 121.00 167.00 94. 45.: 40. 00! 47 14.: 44 17
83 96.17 23,50 46.6' 73,00 69,00 5.83 '97.6' 229.81 755' '322383 070 '32. '62.83 '53.00 '99,00 '26 72. 47,33 0. 32.8 196.0 216. 168,00 143.5 73.17 2
.33 113,67 141,00 164.1' 90,50 86,50 24,5') '94.!" 226.31 '52' '29 '.34.83'166 7 5 '16. '76,. '28' '59.23 '49.50 '95.59 '23 68. 43,83 32. 0,0 195,8 216,0 167.83 143,3 73.00 2
00 163,50 144,83 6,3' 86.50 76.17 44.33 75.67 64.00 96, 125., 102, 107.83 145, .3 05,0! 575 88.17 62.33 34.17 88. 142, 167,00 196, 195.8 0.0 90,8 58,67
17209.67212.33 69,8' 8.83 36.83 40,00 25. 54.0 3!. 36.50 109. .0 165.6 141,6 125,17 77.8 108.33 82.50 107,67 108. 156.6 162. 187,17 216, 216,0 90.8 0,0 62.83
.67 190.17 171.50 123,0! 63. 130.83 102,83 88.67 43,00 75. 10!. 78, 83.67 117. 117,50 93.50 77.00 295 60.17 34.33 60.83 586 62.8 000 40.17111.50
831 199.331!80.671l32,! 72. 140,00 112.00 97.8: 67.50 a' 9!, .8 91,00 67.00 50.50 03.! 33.67 22.83 70.00 35. 84.0 89. 114,50 143, 143.) 67.8 87.3 40.17 0,00 85.67
II 9.17 '38,8' 71,00' '6! '61,733731 '20.8? 73.5 10400 94.17 140.17 68, 19.0 19. 44.17 73, 73.0 139,1 158.6 111.50 85,67 0.00
17.00186.67218,83 216.17244.8 22!, 227.33 209, .0 209.17 18517168,672213 151,83 142,00 188.00 115, 66.8 6!. 36,33 24. 25,17187,00206.5015933 133,50 63.50 0.06
 The 201 1 Inter Sub Provinces Travel Time (minutes)

I 2 3 4 5 6 9 1 I 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 3

0.00 74.33 77.33 86,00 7950 11L17 106.17 154.67 207.6 177.5 9. 236.8 220.C 277.51' 123.7) '39.OP '2183 76 '48 9 70 3 39.81 '08.8' 67.00 700.1' 17.8

2 74.33 000 46.33 82.50 026' 870 85 3 774Ofl 776.00 752.00 735.50 78781 2183 'SI 144.6 6. 157.6 51.83 127.17 9617 1136' 63.5r 096' 90.17 99.31 1540)
3 77.33 4633 0.00 61.33 91.67 23.33 8400 99.1 1896 3 7490 '553? '57.3? 733.31 '69.1' 73 7 )4S !44.83 712.31 71.50 180.67 145.17 32.5
4 86.00 82.50 6133 0.00 99.O() 35.5 !25 0 150 47 8 8517 06.8' '088? 8481 68.3' 51 24 6 77.5 177. 033 163.00 146.67 16417 96.33 16983 123.00 132.17 173.50 155.6
5 7950 8900 9167 99.00 0.00 47.33 I 14.0 90 8 43 13 6 53 !73 0 15167 '57.0 731.67 788.1' 749.50 725.50 709.00 76131 i91 8 '65 39 203 7 3' 172.67 41.6'
6 11111 25.6' 23.31 13.8? 47.33 0.00 96.6 57.8 III. 81.6 3.3 141.0 11967 125.0 19967 25617 21667 192.67 176.17 590 '32 3 9 2076 3 5fl 704.00 173.00 190.50 8650 104.33 130.83 14000 211.33 18
7 10617 102.67 84.00 35,50 I 14.00 96.67 0.3 8 30 127 0 8 65.(O 70 .' 86.6' 88.6' 64.61 48.17 200.50 131.0 104. 57.3 163.0 883 18533 169.00 186.50 76.17 149.67 102.83 1 12.00 16667 17

8 54.67 164.17 6683 125.00 9083 57,83 04.8 0.0 94. 86 5 50 !399 '20.7 '293 '62.76 705.05 '5705 '3545 '20.60 6770 05 8!. 577 5 108 9 '7647 39.9(' '06.98 79.80 88.08 5225 '9
'17.r' '99.11 50.6' '4381 '30.5 94.8 0. 41.8 4 .2 66. 46.95 51.7 121.30 16980 129.75 108.15 93.30 140.40 77.8 54. 79.6 7 121 6 690 !49.10 7790 7475 6810 3315 3870 60.75 124.9516
10 77,50 87.00 89.67 147.17 I 13.67 81.67 27.0 86.5 41. 0.0 44.1 69.0 4980 54.f 2521 '7265 '58.71 '3719 '22.25 '6936 06 8 82. 74.5 6. 150.6 5.85 178.05 206.85 203.70 57.60 36.00 67.65 89.70 1539019
II 209.17 218.67 221.33 178.83 145.33 11333 58.6 115.0 41. 44. 0.0 40.5 36.60 41.4 115.10 159.45 156.30 13470 119.85 166.95 104,4 80. 103.9 4.4 148.2 3.45 175.65 20445 201.30 87.00 22.80 67.95 87.30 151,501945
'46.3' 73.0) '41.C) '86.33 399 66. 69.0 40.5 0.0 62.40 67.? '85.25 '60.58 4565 '92.75 302 06 0 1740 9 4 10 227,1 4860 91.05 113.10 177.3022
3 215.50 225.00 227.67 185.17 151.67 I 19.67 65.0 120.7 46. 49.8 6.6 62.4 000 44.' 13W '52.07 3987 '24.95 '72.09 095(' 85.6 109.0 9. 153.3 8. .7 09. 206.4 92.10 2790 70 35 92,40 156.60 19
14 220.83 230.33 233.00 190.50 157.00 125.00 70.3 125.5 51. 54.6 .4 67.2 44. 0.0 99.00 127.30 166.35 144.75 129.90 17700 114.45 906 1 14.0 4.4 158.2 3. .7 14. 211.3 97.05 32.85 75.30 97.35 161.5520
'06.8? '99.67 '86.5 552 '18 121 8 77 5 99.0 0.00 10485 93.75 81.90 74.10 125.55 65.70 90.4 13!. 98 141 9 7 3 98 959 '30.95 98,7 '05.75 81,9 '45
!6132.81 910.67 762.17288.17 256.17 242.0 205.0 169. 172.6 9.4 .2 2. 133.9 104.85 0.00 51.50 83.85 98.70 '50.15 '389 179 55 '46 1903 '95 6 8 16 243 4 '79.49 '52,1 '54.20 '30,3 '93
'49.5)'16.67 '88.6 570 '29 58 7 6 66 3 93.75 61.35 0.00 3540 5025 101.70 65.70 90.4 13!. 98. 141.9 147. .3 98. 195.0 130.95 149.1 105.75 81.9 145.
755,59 133.31 '84.8? 9267 '64.8 135 4 '08 15 137 5 9 44 7 71.25 83.85 35.40 0.00 28.65 8010 44.10 68.8 109.5 76. 120.3 125. .7 76. 73 4 '09.35 '27 5 84.15 60 3 '23
239.0 15.5('716.81 '68.33709.00 176.17 '48.1 120.6 93. 122.2 9. .6 4. 29.9 7410 98.70 50.25 28.65 0.00 6525 29.25 54.0 946 61 6 '10 1329 5! 58 5 94.50 112.6 69.30 45.4 108.

29L' 87.8' 169.I''20.6' '.61,39 '2850700.5 167 7 '40 693 6 7 2 770 '2555 50 1 '01.70 80.1 65.25 0.0 76.65 101.4 142.0 109. 152.8 158. 180.3 09. 205.9 141.90 160.0 116.70 92.8 156. 5
221.8 8.33 199.67 isi.r' '91.81 5907 311 105 77 106 8 0 13 2 9 14 4 65.70 14.1 65.70 44.1 29.25 76.6 0.00 38.8 79.5 46. 90.3 95. 1 17.7 46. 43.4 79.35 97.5 54.15 30.3 93.
951 91 71 '24.67 c '04 81.3 54. 82.9 0. .3 5. 90.6 90.45 38.9 90.45 68.8 54.00 01. 38.85 0.0 56.2 37. 81.4 8670 108 9 '37 '34 5 56.10 74.2 30.90 20.5 84

'.' 44.o,
48.1 , 77.50 , 063., 79.o., u3.,, 131 10 131.10 94.65 56.2 , 0.0 179...., 30,75 54.75
24219.00206.33 97.50 151.17 191.83 59.00 131.00 10515 77.85 106.80 104.40 130.20 109.50 114.45 98.10 14655 98.10 76.50 61.65 10905 46.50 37.65 80.10 0.00 57.90 63.15 8535 114.15 111.00 7935 97.50 54.15 32.10 6120 104.25
25 170.33 157.67 48.83 177.17203.17 207.67 163.00 148.95 121.65 150.60 148,20 174.00 153.30 158.25 141.90 19035 141.90 120.30 105.45 152.85 90.30 81.45 122.85 57.90 0.00 19.05 97.65 75.60 17.10 60.15
41.25 70.05 66.90 122.85 141.00
26 64.50 151.83 43.00 170.33 197.33213.50 168.83 154.20 126.90 155.85 153.45 179.25 158.55 163.50 147.15 195.60 147.15 125.55 110.70 158.10 95.55 86.70 128.10 63.1 5 19.05 36.00 64.80 61.65 128.10 146.25 102.90 80.85 17.55 54.90
0.00
27 39.83 127.17 I 17.33 163,00 72.67 204.00 85.33 176.40 149,10 178,05 175.65 201.45 180.75 185.70 169.35 217.80 169.35 147.75 132 90 180,30 I 17.75 108.90 150,30 85.3 5 41.25 36.00 0.00 42.60 39.45 150.30 168,45 125.10 103.05 39.751 32.70
28 08.83 96.17 123.50 146.67 141.67 73.00 69.00 194.25 177.90 206.85 204.45 230.25 209.55 214.50 198.15 246.60 198.15 176.55 161 70 209.10 146.55 137.70 179.10 I 14.15 70.05 64.80 42.60 0.00 29.55 176.40 194.55 151.20 129.15 65.851 21.90
29 26.33 90.50 86.50202.05 174.75 203.70201.30227.10206.40211.35 19500
13.67 141.00 164,17 159.17 243.45 195.00 173.40 158.55 205.95 143,40 134.55 175.95 111.00 66.90 61.65 39.45 29.55 0.00 176.25 194.40 151.05 129.00 65.70 5

30 67.00 63.50 44.83 96.33 119.50 86.50 76.17 39.90 68.10 57.60 87.00 112.80 92.10 97.05 13095 179.40 130.95 109.35 94.50 41.90 79.35 56.10 30.75 79.3 5 122.85 128.10 50.30 17640 176.25 0.00 81.75 52.80 61.05 125.25 0

31 200.17 209.67 212.33 169.83 136.33 104.33 149.67 06.95 33.15 36.00 22.80 48.60 27.9 0 32.85 98.70 152.10 149.10 127.50 I 12.65 160.05 97.50 74.25 96.90 97.50 141.00 146.25 168.45 194.55 94.40 81.75 0.00 56 55 78.60 142.80 185.8 5
32 93.67 190.17 171.50 123.00 163.67 130.83 102.83 79.80 38.70 67.65 67.95 91.05 70.35 75.30 05.75 154.20 105.75 84.15 69 30 1 16.70 54.15 30.90 54 75 54 1 5 97.65 102,90 125.10 151.20 151.05 52.80 56.55 0 00 36.15 100.35 143.4 0
33202.83 199.33 80.67 132.17 172.83 40.00 112.00 88.05 60.75 89.70 87.30 113.10 92.4 0 97.35 81.90 130.35 81.90 6030 45.45 92.85 30.30 20.55 63.00 32.1 0 75.60 80.85 103.05 129.15 129.00 61.05 78.60 36.15 0.00 77.10 120.1 5
34 166.67 154.00 145.17 73.50 199.50 21 1.33 166.67 52.25 124.95 153.90 151.50 177.30 156.6 0 161.55 45,20 193,65 145.20 123.60 08.75 156.15 93.60 84.75 126 15 61.20 17.10 17.55 39.75 65 85 65.70 125.25 142.80 00.35 77.10 0.00 57.1 5
 The Predicted 201 1 Central Java Transport Demand After Road Improvement (pculhour)

I 5 6 7 8 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2 2 2 2S 29 30 3! 32 33 34 35 3

I 0.00 65.1 128 9.! 13.92 6.63 971 783 1.82 .8 8.9 1.15 2,06 3.47 1.99 255 085 268 3.96 3.70 10 41 25.89 3.88 2 77 6. 3.3 5.5 8.95 13.57 3.83 1495 3.24 2.59 12,75 9.8 60
2 5868 0.0 28.5 29.4 26.07 3.26 7.67 2.27 4.71 I. 0.7 0.64 0.39 0.230.29 0.27 0.29 0.72 38! 1.55 2.49 11.19 I 84 047 0.6 1.3 3.7 931 40.91 1.04 2.44 0.80 16.68 0.9 8.44 9.9 2.9
3 2806 48.1 0.0 14.0 4.30 1.05 496 .45 0.2 0.2 0. 013 0.63 092 027 0 26 025 049 0.60 0.5! I 88 3 76 0.51 039 0.7 1. 2.3 2.31 1.53 0.52 0.89 0.31 4.25 0.7 1.99 2.8 1.9
4 6.94 24.3 12.4 0.0 2.53 1.09 29.88 5.76 3.2 0.6 0.6 0.74 058 0.66 0.38 0.38 0.37 0 0.9 10.4 1.6 1.34 3.26 154 2.19 0.85 16.46 1.06 1.50 1.8 1.7
3.S'5 2.2 1.7 0.004922 105 6.70 0.5 1.8 1.3 0.99 0.99 0.84 0.66 0.52 028 159 0.89 0.5 0. 8.8 1.3 0.61 0.7 0.6 1.1 152 1.41 2.64 7.61 286 9.5 0.5 1.34 3.2 1.6
6 5.85 5.1 2.2 1.6 15.71 0.0 3. 14.93 0.6 2.2 1.7 1.05 1.15 0.70 0.55 0.40 0.24 0.37 456 4.4 0 9.8 23 0.86 0.3 25.3 0.3 063 0.49 411 7.04 1.36 9.9 0.3 0.6 3.5 1.0
7 346 5.7 4.5 41. 1110 10.0 0. 782 1.0 1. 0.2 026 0.98 0.7! 046 163 037 071 1.11 0.9 2.4 6.9 10.8 145 14.6 21.2 2.1 1.04 1.22 4.19 2.97 1.05 10.) 08 1.9 1.

K 3.13 2.14 1.0 2.8 5.54 14.6 8. 000 3.4 4.76 1.7 1.42 285 1.90 1.84 1.32 1.27 7.14 4.0 23. 34.8 28.1 277 1.0 2.0 0.8 1.53 150 7.50 1469 8.96 26.7 1.0 1.9 4.9 1.

9 0.69 0.55 0.2 0.9 0.72 1.8 I. 2.23 0.0 2184 30.6 3.62 8.08 5.41 2.99 0.49 0.47 1.80 090 1.0 23 26.5 1.2 135 0.64 0.6 0.5 0.54 0.77 273 56.79 26.19 9.9 0.8 0.9 2.4 0.9
10 3.78 3.78 1.0 0.8 409 4.8 3. 5.0220. 00 I 4.52 4.72 7,06 1.76 0.93 0.49 0.93 092 0.9 15. II. L8 2.4 0.44 0.6 0.3 052 0.42 2.26 50.53 3.83 18.0 0.4 0.6 21 0.
II 2.75 0.90 0.2 0.4 116 1.4 0. 8 1.3847.2 26.3 33.53 7.94 1014 188 194 027 1.25 2.84 0.7 0 12.0 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.48 0.66 1.64 47.3 6.77 5.8 1.1 13 1.5 0.
2 156 2,77 0.7 0.5 2. 2.3 0. 1.10 3.5 2.7 3 0.00 7.02 11.23 0.99 075 0.35 517 149 0 7 2 45 09 0. 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.43 0.32 092 45.0 3 58 7.1 0.3 0.5 1. 0.
3 OS3 0.46 0.5 0,3 0. 0.8 0. 3.48 4.8 4. 2 6.87 0.0025.73 2.73 0.83 0.48 3.0 0.6 07 2. 4.9 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.61 08! 3.21 77.15 2.56 7.1 0.6 1.0 13 0
14 0.80 0.44 0.4 0.5 1. 1.4 0. 4.08 5.5 7.04 10.31 23.72 0.00 14.88 1.74 1.02 1.9 0.7 0.7 2. 7.0 08 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.S9 036 415 91.22 4.9 8.2 0.3 0.5 1.9 0.
15 0.5 0.47 0.2 0.5 0. 0.4 0. 2.17 1.8 2.5 1.89 1.93 6.96 000 1.35 1.74 4.9 6.0 14.8 7. 34.6 1.0 5. 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.71 1.93 24.72 2.30 44.0 0.7 I. 2.3 1.
6 0.6 0.37 0.4 0.4 0. 0,9 0. 2.00 0.9 3.6 0.79 0.89 3.65 9.86 0.00 15.40 5.9 5.3 3.2 2. 17.7 0.5 4. 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.68 063 20! 11.59 1.76 0.5 02 22 t
032 0.42 0.28 0.3 0 86 0.5 0.49 2.02 0.4 0.2 0.75 0.58 0.49 1.95 10.32 0.00 17.9 9.5 2.44 2. 15.5 0.6 5.6 0.4 0.9 0.2 0.72 0.5 1.8 3. 1.18 8.5 0.5 0.4 3.2 1.
8 0.85 0.85 0.72 7.9 0.4 0.4 5.9 17.71 0.6 1.4 23! 1.25 352 609 592 37.91 00 '6 '6 3 10 3476 1.7 14.00 1.7 1.6 1.2 128 I6 6.1 6. 1.45 23.9 1.4 1.0 3.2 2.
9 .29 1.62 1.16 1.4 0. 0.6 3.5 19.3$ 1.9 0.9 1.7 0.67 0.80 0.9 6. 4. 6.0521.0 00 31. 34.7 32 46. 2.7 4.7 1.4 1.94 43 19.1 8 1.75 29.3 2.8 0.9 7.9 1.
0 0.94 0.81 0,46 0.7 I. 0.4 0.8 6.64 04 1.4 0.4 1.71 0.71 1.6 38. 2. 7.01 19.7 43.7 0.0 17. 24.6 3.2 16.0 I0 1.6 0.6 1.60 1.7 6.6 4. 1.8 31.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 1.

1.08 0.4 041 0.8 0. 0. 0.8 2.53 0.8 0.9 0.7 063 0.59 1.4 8. 2. 3.46 5.0 23.3 21.4 0. 59.6 1.8 3. 7.0 1.0 0.8 0.93 1.14 1.7 6 463 fl0.l 1.4 135 2.31 L
2.40 5.6 324 5.7 6. 7. 5.6 28.3! 29. 8.3 7.2 3.90 5.10 5.8 47. 12. 110427.8 37.8 20.5 93. 0.0 18.4 34. 6.3 16.4 8.5 2!. S4 '1.8 66 10.0 0. 4.
1.72 1.6 10533.2 0. I. 8,0 3504 0.9 1.6 1.4 0.69 0.87 1.4 0. 0. 263 829'02 95 890 258 00 14.15 08 08 0.6 0 0.6 348 4. 3.94 45.6 0. 1.0 1.71 0.
0.98 0.7 0.35 1.2 0. 0. 1,0 5.31 1.3 1.8 0.8 1.38 1.! 1.7 2. 1. 2.88 7.91 19.0 10.3 80.2 ii 9 I 00024.4 6.6 2.9 4. 2.2 4.5 3 2.73 68.9 2. 2.7 3.2 1.
1.75 1. LI 1.2 0 0 36 0.92 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.53 0. 0.5 I. 0. 0.69 1.15 I. I. 3.4 4.8 896 0.0 41.5 8.8 5. 5.8 6.2 2. 1.16 7.9 40.4 8. 3.0 2.
26! 831 .88 .57 6.90 0.57 303 353 0.60 071 0.64 1.26
.42 0.83 0.58 0.65 0.87 1.10 1.06 187 1.08 3.22 1826 46040.21 0.0023.08 1188 8.05 I 94 1.66 17.13 5.16 11.70

2712.001 5.02 2.52 0.59 0.86 072 0.81 0.62 034 0.33 0.29 024 0.24 0.27 0.51 0.52 0.42 0.60 095 0.54 0.80 11.91 0.43 3.32 7.5625.30 0.00 43 86 9.72 0.62 1.96 0.76 13.39 10.8$ 55.79 4.5
281 6.14 2.07 1.40 1.08 0.96 1.02 .36 063 0.70 046 0.41 0.46 0.50 085 066 060 198 263 0.99 1.64 29.23 0.90 5.02 407 10.6830.33 0.00 18581 055 8.12 163 24.90 5.74 5.9g12.4112.6
9711 15i6 2.44 .79 1.99 0,59 5.61 1.20 0.58 0.81 0.47 050 0.47 0.67 1.72 064 0.97 2.29 535 2.66 23.35 13.19 1.20 349 3.85 11.31 16.78 197.58 000 26! 7.2! 1.05 1824 5.63 124,6016.7 18.6
30J l.47j 2.03 0.57 52 2.76 5.50 27.98 1.57 1.63 0.72 0.63 1.09 1.95 079 066 1.29 2.58 476 2.70 18.72 14.23 32.62 4.54 135 076 0.48 0.83 079 000 7.68 560 49.17 0.95 OS! 2.07 1.6
1.27 2.29 6.89 8.57 2.39 7.753742 29.528528 5948 76.3263.84 1697 1601 1.98 6.21 6.07 424 501 6843 5.93 6.40 2.37 5.48 255 3.09 4.18 8.06 0.0029.01 29.50 3.35 4.63 6.0 2.6
121 0.83 082 1.18 .20 0.88 2.93 1.98 29023.06 11.09 1076 7.70 2.70 3.03 25! I 86 214 5.70 11.19 566 4835 1575 3.26 3.38 1.06 1.02 068 0.64 1.03 4.15 0.00 48.25 0.98 1.05 3.65 1.5

'312663 22.72 5.90 14.85 22.28 574 50.59 12.57 1544 6.04 12.69 9.38 17.6! 45.38 22 17 670 61.40 33.83 2851 1 1723 10422 2060 120.39 1622 30.44 1460 27.84 14.39 50.04 3818 42.21 0.00 20.87 57.4618.5 6.7
1.04 I.9B 0.8 3,1 0.54 131 3.71 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3 0. 0.4 0, 046 049 0.79 I. 0.8 3.3 8.7 5.9235.0 ) : 7. 3.6 9.92 2.8 0.66 0.0c 16.10 4. 3.

8.84 9,81 0.8 2.3 0.90 893 0.67 1.6 .9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0. 0. 032 027 152 I. 2.0 20.2 265 10.2 19.5 7 32.4 63.5 253 6.0 3.1 IA
9.7320.52 1.3 1.6 1.78 1.59 1.46 2.74 0.9 1.4 1.74 2.4 0. 1.33 09 0.73 0. 6.5 4.6 0.87 14.5 1.4 5.34 0.1 8.
6.77 6.88 1.3 1.4 1.94 3.90 1.0 1.63 0.72 3.0 0.6 1.60 1.3 1.17 1.56 2.76 4.8 1.7 1.3 15.0 0. 15.3 6.5 0.8622.2 2.49 17.0 1.27 4.71 4.9 0.
 Appendix F

SPSS Output for Passenger Demand Model Calibration

Regression Traditional Model
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
I Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
'-'n nter<=
'..,r
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
a. Dependent Variable: TGO1

Model Summary

Std. Error
Adjusted of the
Model R R Square R Square Estimate
1 740a .548 .534 1 .OE+07

a. Predictors: (Constant), CP

ANOVAb

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 4.1E+15 . 1 4.1E+15 40.037 000a
Residual 3.4E+15 33 1.OE+14
Total 7.6E+15 34
a. Predictors: (Constant), CP
b. Dependent Variable: TGO1

Coefficien&

Standardi
zed
Unstandardized Coefficien
Coefficients ts
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.2E+07 2119125 5.535 .000
CP 49.293 7.790 .740 6.328 .000
a. Dependent Variable: TGO1
 Excluded

Collinearit
Partial Y Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
DENS .034a .259 .798 .046 .825
GRDP 058a .403 .690 .071 .681
HOU 053a .438 .664 .077 .971
POP .054a .454 .653 .080 .977
RP 05ga .454 .653 .080 .840
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), CP
b. Dependent Variable: TGO1

Regression Destination Zone Attraction

Variables Entered/Removec?

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
I Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
,... nter<=
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
a. Dependent Variable: EJ

Model Summary

Std. Error
Adjusted of the
Model R R Square R Square Estimate
I .492 .476 1.IE+07
a. Predictors: (Constant), CP

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 3.9E15 I 3.9E+15 31.900 .000a
Residual 4.OE15 33 1.2E+14
Total 7.9E+15 34
a. Predictors: (Constant), CP
b. Dependent Variable: EJ
 Coefflcientsa

Standardi
zed
Unstandardized Coefficien
Coefficients ts
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.2E+07 2305262 5.187 .000
CP 47.864 8.475 .701 5.648 .000
a. Dependent Variable: EJ

Excluded

Collinearit
Partial y Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
DENS .506 .616 .089 .825
GRDP -.063 .950 -.011 .681
HOU 074a .581 .565 .102 .971
RP 0g3a .723 .475 .127 .955
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), CP
b. Dependent Variable: EJ
Regression Improved Model
Variables Entered/Removect

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
I Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
CP
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
2 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
SI
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
3 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
RP
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
a. Dependent Variable: TGO1

Model Summary

Std. Error
Adjusted of the
Model R R Square R Square Estimate
74Qa .548
1 .534 1.OE+07
2 819b .671 .650 8816496
3 .846c .716 .688 8323088
a. Predictors: (Constant), CP
b. Predictors: (Constant), CP, SI
C. Predictors: (Constant), CP, SI, RP
 ANOVAd

Sum of Mean .

Model Squares df Square F Sig.

1 Regression 4.IE+15 1 4.IE+15 40.037 .000a
Residual 3.4E+15 33 1.OE+14
Total 7.6E+15 34
2 Regression 5.IE+15 2 2.5E+15 32.625 000b
Residual 2.5E+15 32 7.8E+13
Total 7.6E+15 34
3 Regression 5.4E+15 3 1.8E+15 26.041 .000C
Residual 2.IE+15 31 6.9E+13
Total 7.6E+15 34
a. Predictors: (Constant), CP
b. Predictors: (Constant), CP, SI
c. Predictors: (Constant), CP, SI, RP
d. Dependent Variable: TGO1

Coefficien
Coefficients ts
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.2E+07 2119125 5.535 .000
CP 49.293 7.790 .740 6.328 .000
2 (Constant) -1565092 4263397 -.367 .716
CF 45.183 6.855 .679 6.591 .000
SI .192 .056 .356 3.455 .002
3 (Constant) -1.2E+07 6314118 -1.955 .060
CF 40.909 6.753 .614 6.058 .000
SI .238 .056 .442 4.220 .000
RP 10.069 4.546 .234 2.215 .034
a. Dependent Variable: TGO1
 Excluded

Collinearit
Partial y Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 DENS .034a .259 .798 .046 .825
GRDP 058a .403 .690 .071 .681
HOU .053a .438 .664 .077 .971
RP .069a .568 .574 .100 .955
SI .356a 3.455 .002 .521 .970
2 DENS 043b .710 -.067 .793
GRDP 128b 1.028 .312 .182 .664
HOU 220b 2.073 .047 .349 .831
RP 234b 2.215 .034 .370 .824
3 DENS .151c 1.137 .264 .203 .514
GRDP .138 .891 .025 .539
HOU -.524 .604 -.095 2.458E-02
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), CP
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), CP, SI
c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), CP, SI, RP
d. Dependent Variable: TGO1
 Appendix G

SPSS Output for Freight Demand Model Calibration

Regression: Traditional Model
Variables Entered/Removec?

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter<=
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
2 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
GRDP .
1<=
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
a. Dependent Variable: TON

Model Summary

Std. Error
Adjusted of the
Model R R Square R Square Estimate
1 469a .220 .219 1.7858
2 568b .322 .321 1.6658
a. Predictors: (Constant), CIJ
b. Predictors: (Constant), CIJ, GRDP

ANOVAC

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 771 .950 1 771 .950 242.059 .000a
Residual 2736.246 858 3.189
Total 3508.196 859
2 Regression 1130.087 2 565.043 203.625 000b
Residual 2378.110 857 2.775
Total 3508.196 859
a. Predictors: (Constant), CIJ
b. Predictors: (Constant), CIJ, GRDP
C. Dependent Variable: TON
 Coefflcientsa

Standardi
zed
Unstandardized Coefficien
Coefficients ts
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
I (Constant) 19.632 .566 34.661 .000
CIJ -1.826 .117 -.469 -15.558 .000
2 (Constant) -.599 1.858 -.323 .747
CU -1.917 .110 -.492 -17.456 .000
GRDP .748 .066 .320 11.361 .000
a. D ependent Variable: TON

Excluded

Collinearit
Partial Y Statistics
Mode! Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 AGRIC 044a 1.425 .154 .049 .943
GRDP 320a 11.361 .000 .362 .995
HOUS 6.793 .000 .226 .951
INDUS .267a 9.270 .000 .302 .999
POP 201a 6.650 .000 .222 .949
TRADE 297a 10.421 .000 .335 .998
2 AGRIC -1.568 .117 -.054 .876
HOUS 020b .576 .019 .626
INDUS 057b
.330 -.033 .233
POP 013b .363 .717 .012 .623
TRADE -1.145 .253 -.039 8.515E-02
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), CIJ
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), CIJ, GRDP
c. Dependent Variable: TON
Regression: Selecting Variables Affecting Freight Attraction
Variables Entered/Removec?

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
AGRIC
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
2 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
TRADE
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
3 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
INDUS
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
4 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
GRDP
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
5 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
TRADE
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
a. Dependent Variable: TON
 Model Summary

Std. Error
Adjusted of the
Model R R Square R Square Estimate
1
.009 .007 539379.2
2 173b .030 .028 533845.7
3 .047 .043 529533.9
4 255d .065 .061 524736.7
5 .252e .063 .060 524860.1
a. Predictors: (Constant), AGRIC
b. Predictors: (Constant), AGRIC, TRADE
C. Predictors: (Constant), AGRIC, TRADE, INDUS
d. Predictors: (Constant), AGRIC, TRADE, INDUS, GRDP
e. Predictors: (Constant), AGRIC, INDUS, GRDP

ANOVPI

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 2.2E+12 1 2.2E+12 7.458 006a
Residual 2.5E14 858 2.9E11
Total 2.5E+14 859
2 Regression 7.5E+12 2 3.8E+12 13.246 000b
Residual 2.4E+14 857 2.8E1 I
Total 2.5E+14 859
3 Regression 1.2E13 3 3.9E+12 13.980
Residual 2.4E+14 856 2.8E+1 1
Total 2.5E14 859
4 Regression 1.6E+13 4 4.IE12 14.858 000d
Residual 2.4E+14 855 2.8E+1 I
Total 2.5E+14 859
5 Regression 1.6E+13 3 5.3E+12 19.334 .000e
Residual 2.4E+14 856 2.8E1 1
Total 2.5E+14 859
a. Predictors: (Constant), AGRIC
b. Predictors: (Constant), AGRIC, TRADE
C. Predictors: (Constant), AGRIC, TRADE, INDUS
d. Predictors: (Constant), AGRIC, TRADE, INDUS, GRDP
e. Predictors: (Constant), AGRIC, INDUS, GRDP
f Dependent Variable: TON
 Coefficien&
Standardi
zed
Unstandardized Coefficien
Coefficients ts
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 325390.9 37224.282 8.741 .000
AGRIC -.316 .116 -.093 -2.731 .006
2 (Constant) 337237.6 36943.153 9.129 .000
AGRIC -.572 .129 -.168 -4.436 .000
TRADE .209 .048 .164 4.345 .000
3 (Constant) 353537.4 36885.435 9.585 .000
AGRIC -.743 .135 -.218 -5.493 .000
TRADE .855 .173 .672 4.930 .000
INDUS -.399 .103 -.504 -3.875 .000
4 (Constant) 113957.7 69053.218 1.650 .099
AGRIC -1.102 .160 -.323 -6.878 .000
TRADE -.422 .356 -.332 -1.184 .237
INDUS -.844 .149 -1.067 -5.658 .000
GRDP .699 .171 1.607 4.089 .000
5 (Constant) 177453.1 43526.695 4.077 .000
AGRIC -1.044 .153 -.306 -6.843 .000
INDUS -.787 .141 -.995 -5.572 .000
GRDP .522 .082 1.199 6.329 .000
a. Dependent Variable: TON
 Excluded VariableJ

Collinearit
Partial Y Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 GRDP .164a 4.293 .000 .145 .773
HOUS .162a 2.987 .003 .102 .391
INDUS 3.104 .002 .105 .871
POP 160a 2.951 .003 .100 .388
TRADE .164a 4.345 .000 .147 .792
2 GRDP 016b -.059 .953 -.002 1.517E-02
HOUS 143b 2.656 .008 .090 .388
INDUS 504b -3.875 .000 -.131 6.585E-02
POP 140b 2.595 .010 .088 .385
3 GRDP 1.607C 4.089 .000 .139 7.084E-03
HOUS 1.757 .079 .060 .364
POP 1.777 .076 .061 .365
4 HOUS 016d .277 .782 .009 .314
POP 025d .665 .015 .323
5 HOUS .512 .609 .017 .327
POP .037e .643 .520 .022 .335
TRADE 332e -1.184 .237 -.040 1.393E-02
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), AGRIC
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), AGRIC, TRADE
c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), AGRIC, TRADE, INDUS
d. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), AGRIC, TRADE, INDUS, GRDP
e. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), AGRIC, INDUS, GRDP
f. Dependent Variable: TON
Regression Improved Model
Variables Entered/Removecf

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
POP
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
2 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e

GRDP

Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
a. Dependent Variable: TON

Model Summary

Std. Error
Adjusted of the
Model R R Square R Square Estimate
724a .524
1
.523 373727.2
2 737b .542 366266.9
a. Predictors: (Constant), POP
b. Predictors: (Constant), POP, GRDP

ANOVAC

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sip.
1 Regression 1.3E14 1 1.3E14 944.705 000a
Residual 1.2E+14 858 1.4E+11
Total 2.5E+14 859
2 Regression 1.4E14 2 6.8E+13 509.945 000b
Residual 1.IE+14 857 1.3E+11
Total 2.5E+14 859
a. Predictors: (Constant), POP
b. Predictors: (Constant), POP, GRDP
c. Dependent Variable: TON
 Coefficientsa

Standardi
zed
Unstandardized Coefficien
Coefficients ts
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
I (Constant) 62011.366 13956.043 4.443 .000
POP 1.496 .049 .724 30.736 .000
2 (Constant) 57480.276 13700.066 4.196 .000
POP 1.042 .089 .504 11.701 .000
GRDP .319 .053 .260 6.026 .000
a. Depe ndent Variable: TON

Excluded

Collinearit
Partial y Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
AGRIC 233a -3.829 .000 -.130
1
.148
GRDP .260a 6.026 .000 .202 .287
HOUS 254a .421 .674 .014 1.522E-03
INDUS 5.682 .000 .191 .387
TRADE 178a 5.810 .000 .195 .568
2 AGRIC 024b -.325 .745 -.011 9.463E-02
HOUS ..274b -.459 .647 . -.016 1 .489E-03
INDUS 056b .671 .502 .023 7.667E-02
TRADE 024b -.18 1 .856 -.006 3.067E-02
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), POP
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), POP, GRDP
C. Dependent Variable: TON
Regression Improved Model + Spatial Structure Variable
Variables Entered/Removed

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
1 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
POP
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
2 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
GRDP
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
3 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
TDI
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
a. Dependent Variable: TON

Model Summary

Std. Error
Adjusted of the
Model R R Square R Square Estimate
1
724a .524 .523 373727.2
2 737b .543 .542 366266.9
3 .740c .548 .547 364494.0
a. Predictors: (Constant), POP
b. Predictors: (Constant), POP, GRDP
C. Predictors: (Constant), POP, GRDP, TDI
 ANOVAd

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
1 Regression 1.3E+14 I 1.3E+14 944705 .000a
Residual 1.2E+14 858 1.4E+11
Total 2.5E+14 859
2 Regression 1.4E+14 2 6.8E+13 509.945 000b
Residual 1.IE+14 857 1.3E11
Total 2.5E+14 859
3 Regression 1.4E+14 3 4.6E+13 346.398 .000C
Residual 1.IE+14 856 1.3E+l1
Total 2.5E+14 859
a. Predi ctors: (Constant), POP
b. Predi ctors: (Constant), POP, GRDP
C. Predictors: (Constant), POP, GRDP, TDI
d. Depe ndent Variable: TON

Coefficientsa

Standardi
zed
Unstandardized Coefficien
Coefficients ts
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 62011.366 13958.043 4.443 .000
POP 1.496 .049 .724 30.736 .000
2 (Constant) 57480.276 13700.066 4.196 .000
POP 1.042 .089 .504 11.701 .000
GRDP .319 .053 .260 6.026 .000
3 (Constant) -174787 77144.741 -2.266 .024
POP 1.008 .089 .488 11.287 .000
GRDP .353 .054 .287 6.549 .000
TDI 48.906 15.988 .072 3.059 .002
a. Dependent Variable: TON
 Excluded Variable&

Collinearit
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 AGRIC -3.829 .000 -.130 .148
GRDP .260a 6.026 .000 .202 .287
HOUS 254a .421 .674 .014 1.522E-03
INDUS 211a 5.682 .000 .191 .387
TRADE .178a 5.810 .000 .195 .568
TDI 041a 1.726 .085 .059 .992
TDJ -.022 .983 -.001 .981
2 AGRIC -.325 .745 -.011 9.463E-02
HOUS .647 -.016 1.489E-03
INDUS 056b .502 .023
.671 7.667E-02
TRADE 024b -.181 .856 -.006 3.067E-02
TDI 072b 3.059 .002 .104 .951
TDJ 008b .358 .721 .012 .977
3 AGRIC -.799 .424 -.027 9.246E-02
HOUS -.094 .925 -.003 1 .468E-03
INDUS .510 .610 .017 7.644E-02
TRADE -.430 .668 -.015 3.047E-02
TDJ .704 .482 .024 .965
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), POP
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), POP, GRDP
c. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), POP, GRDP, TDI
d. Dependent Variable: TON
 Appendix H

SPSS Output for the Structured Traffic Count Based Model Calibration
Regression Traditional Structured TC Based Model
Variables Entered/Removet

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
I Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
nter <=
INCT
.050,
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
2 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
CITDENT .

Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
a. Dependent Variable: TRAFFIC

Model Summary

Std. Error
Adjusted of the
Model R R Square R Square Estimate
1
561a .315 .269 4637.6940
2 786b .617 .563 3586.5578
a. Predictors: (Constant), INCT
b. Predictors: (Constant), INCT, CITDENT

ANOVAC

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
I Regression 1.5E+08 1 1.5E+08 6.888 .019a
Residual 3.2E+08 15 2.2E+07
Total 4.7E+08 16
2 Regression 2.9E+08 2 1.5E+08 11.299 001b
Residual 1.8E+08 14 1.3E+07
Total 4.7E+08 16

a. Predictors: (Constant), INCT

b. Predictors: (Constant), INCT, CITDENT
C. Dependent Variable: TRAFFIC
 Coefflcientsa

Standardi
zed
Unstandardized Coefficien
Coefficients ts
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
I (Constant) 31 82.723 3343.177 .952 .356
INCT 1.253E-07 .000 .561 2.625 .019
2 (Constant) 2611.181 2591.139 1.008 .331
INCT 3.224E-07 .000 1.444 4.620 .000
CITDENT -2.17E-04 .000 -1.040 -3.329 .005
a. Depe ndent Variable: TRAFFIC

Excluded

Collinearit
Partial Y Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
I CITDENT -3.329 .005 -.665 .280
GRDPT 251a .667 .117 .147
POPT -2.085 .056 -.487 .373
2 GRDPT -.127 .901 -.035 .141
POPT -.652 .526 -.178 .253
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), INCT
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), INCT, CITDENT
c. Dependent Variable: TRAFFIC
Regression Improved Structured TC Based Model
Variables Entered/Removec?

Variables Variables
Model Entered Removed Method
I Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
POP2 .

Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
2 Stepwise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of-F-to-e
Popi .

Probabilit
y-of-F-to-r
emove
>= .100).
a. Dependent Variable: TRAFFIC

Model Summary

Std. Error
Adjusted of the
Model R R Square R Square Estimate
1
774a .573 3545.6121
2 902b .813 .787 2504.4879
a. Predictors: (Constant), POP2
b. Predictors: (Constant), POP2, POP1 G

ANOVAC

Sum of Mean
Model Squares df Square F Sig.
I Regression 2.8E+08 1 2.8E+08 22.448 000a
Residual 1.9E+08 15 1.3E+07
Total 4.7E+08 16
2 Regression 3.8E+08 2 1.9E+08 30.527
Residual 8.8E+07 14 6272460
Total 4.7E+08 16

a. Predictors: (Constant), POP2

b. Predictors: (Constant), POP2, POP1
c. Dependent Variable: TRAFFIC
 Coefficientsa

Standardi
zed
Unstandardized Coefficien
Coefficients ts
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
I (Constant) 3732.563 1841.077 2.027 .061
POP2 .561 .118 .774 4.738 .000
2 (Constant) 8870.683 1826.127 4.858 .000
POP2 1.049 .148 1.448 7.101 .000
POPI -.178 .045 -.817 -4.008 .001
a. Depe ndent Variable: TRAFFIC

Excluded

Collinearit
Partial y Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 POP1 -4.008 .001 -.731 .320
pQp3 044a .065 .949 .017 6.250E-02
POP4 -1.947 .072 -.462 .343
2 POP3 578b 1.228 .241 .322 5.806E-02
POP4 542b 1.583 .137 .402 .103
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), POP2
b. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), POP2, POP1
c. Dependent Variable: TRAFFIC
 SELECTING PRIORITY JUNCTION TRAFFIC MODELS TO DETERMINE U-TURN
CAPACITYAT MEDIAN OPENING

A. ALDIAN Michael A. P. TAYLOR

Lecturer of Centre of Land Communication
Education and Training
Ji. Salemba Tengah II No, 1 Jakarta 10440
Indonesia
Phone: +62 21 3107879, +62 21 3908237
Fax : +6221 3147975
Email: Aldian@Sahid.Every1.Net
Professor of Transport Planning
Transport System Centre
School of Geoinformatics, Planning and Building
University of South Australia
North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
Fax: +61 8 8302 1880
Email: MAP.Taylor@UniSA.edu.au

Abstract: Median openings are provided along dual carriageway arterial roads to allow access to
abutting land and to side roads. One of the functions of these median openings is to provide U-
turn opportunities. The U-turn movement at a median opening is highly complex and risky
compared with turning movements at intersections. This study examined the suitability of some
traffic models to determine U-turn capacity at median openings. The modified random platoon
Tanner's formula was found to be the most suitable model. The results further indicated that this
model could be used to determine capacity of any priority controlled intersection where
platooning occurs in conflicting stream. Full knowledge about the headway distribution of major
traffic is very important in selecting a model to determine priority junction capacity. This is no
less important than the determination of the acceptable gap and move-up time parameter.

Key Words: gap acceptance, U-turn, median opening, road capacity, mathematical model

1. INTRODUCTION

To be able to provide access to abutting land and side roads, median openings are provided along
divided carriageway arterial roads. One function of these openings is to provide U-turn
opportunities. The U-turn movement at a median opening is highly complex and risky compared
with turning movements at intersections. First because of the high speed and traffic volume and
second because the turning vehicle has to make a 180 movement and join the traffic stream in
which it is seeking an acceptable gap. The turning vehicle must wait and then turn under low
speed conditions in the face of oncoming traffic and may need to accelerate rapidly to reach the
speed of the traffic stream. If there are many turning vehicles that have to wait, then a long queue
in the stream cannot be avoided and queue spill-back to block through traffic is possible. This can
lead to traffic problems, mainly reduced capacity and level of safety. Thus a determination of U-
turn capacity is needed.

Currently there is a lack of specialist models that estimate the capacity of U-turns at median
openings. As there are similarities between U-turns and priority junctions in term of gap
acceptance theory and some of those movements, this study examined the suitability of current
priority junction traffic models for determining U-turn capacity at median openings. In particular
models using gap acceptance theory are of special interest, as these are widely accepted in traffic
engineering practice.
2. HEADWAY DISTRIBUTIONS

A large number of headway distributions have been developed to represent the different pattern
of vehicle arrivals. The most widely applied assumption is that vehicles arrive randomly and the
headways follow negative exponential distribution. The validity of negative exponential
distribution model is restricted to light flow where there is little interaction between vehicles in
the stream. To overcome this restriction, some analysts recommend use of the displaced negative
exponential distribution (Bennett, 1999). Salter (1974) recommended use of Pearson type III or
the Erlang Distribution when a limited amount of overtaking is possible. Another approach is the
use of mixed exponential models, such as Cowan's 'Model C' (Troutbeck, 1986).

These other models were developed to overcome a condition that vehicles travelling along
highway could be considered to be composed of two types, firstly those who were unable to
overtake and were restrained in their driving performance and secondly those drivers who driving
freely or unrestrained by other vehicle on the highway, i.e. the traffic stream consists of bunches
(platoons) of vehicles.

These models include the doubled exponential headway distribution developed by Schul
(Greenshield and Weida, 1978), the geometric distribution, the Borel-Tanner distribution and the
Miller distribution (Taylor, Miller and Ogden, 1974). In a high traffic flow condition when all
vehicles are in a car-following state, Mei and Bullen (1993) explained that lognormal distribution
is applicable to individual headways rather than the other models that were previously presented.
This result was based on their study on two lanes of a four-lane freeway. Then, the headway
distribution of the traffic stream had been shown to be well represented by the shifted lognormal
distribution. More recently, Joubert and Van As (1994) demonstrated that the travelling queue
distribution developed by Miller (1961) indicates an agreement with actual headways that consist
of platoons.

The capacity of traffic facilities in which drivers are required to select a suitable size of gap for
merging safely depends on the availability of acceptable gaps in the conflicting stream (Joubert
and Van As, 1994). Consequently the priority junction traffic model selected should be one based
on the headway distribution of the conflicting (major) stream at the study location, and which
may consist of platoons (e.g. as a consequence of the effects of traffic signal operations).

3. PRIORITY JUNCTION MODELS EXAMINED

Joubert and Van As (1994) define the capacity of a movement at a priority controlled intersection
as the mean departure rate of an infinite queue on the controlled approach. According to Al-
Azzawi (1997), priority junction models can be grouped into two families: (1) theoretical models
which use driver gap acceptance characteristics as well as traffic movements, and (2) models that
use a junctions' geometric layout characteristics with traffic flow data to estimate turning
capacities.
This paper only considers the first group of the models since these are generally used to evaluate
unsignalised intersection performance (Troutbeck and Walsh, 1994). The best known models
from the second group are Picady (which was developed at TRRL by Kimber and Coombe in the
1 970s) and Transyt (also developed at TRRL, by Vincent, Mitchell and Robertson (Al-Azzawi
1997, p. 268).

The models considered in this study are Tanner's formula, the NAASRA model, the random
platoon Tanner's formula, and the model developed by Siegloch and subsequently used in the
1994 US Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).

3.1. Tanner's Formula

One popular method for estimating unsignalised intersections is developed by Tanner in 1962.
This method is based on the assumption that headways in. the conflicting stream follow a shifted
exponential distribution (Joubert and Van As, 1994).

The general form of Tanner's formula is as follows:

(1)
1

where:
C = capacity (vehls)
qp = arrival rate of conflicting flow (vehls)
ta = critical acceptable gap (seconds)
13 = minimum headway of conflicting flow (seconds)
tf = move-up time (s).
A study by Al-Azzawi (1997) indicated that Tanner's model overestimates the capacities of
minor road turning movements.

3.2. The NAASRA Model

The National Association of Australian State Roads Authorities (NAASRA, now known as
Austroads) developed a model based on a simplified form of Tanner's formula, when the
conflicting stream is assumed to be random (Austroads, 1991). The NAASRA model takes the
theoretical absorption capacity (an upper bound on the number of vehicles per hour in a minor
stream that can enter a major stream), then modifies this results to estimate a practical absorption
capacity. The theoretical absorption capacity is

= exp(q pta)
(2)
1

and the NAASRA practical capacity is

 (3)

where
CT = the theoretical absorption capacity, and
= the practical capacity
Again, Al-Azzawi (1997) concluded that the NAASRA model also overestimates the capacities
of turning movements from the minor approach.

3.3 . The Random Platoon Tanner's Formula

This model was introduced by Tanner in 1967, then used by Troutbeck (Troutbeck and Walsh,
1994) and modified by Joubert and Van As (1994). It is based on the assumption that the
conflicting stream headways contain a combination of the exponential distribution for non-
following headways and a non-random distribution of following headways

Because the priority junction capacity depends on the availability of acceptable gaps in the
conflicting stream, it was then assumed that only non-following gaps are considered as possible
candidates for acceptance and no vehicle will accept a following gap. Thus, it was not necessary
to investigate the exact form the non-random distribution of following headways. The maximum
rate at which the minor stream vehicles can be absorbed into the major stream using these
assumptions is:

= h))
1 exp(q'tf)

Joubert and Van As (1994) stated that a limitation of the Tanner's formula is the use of constant
acceptable gap ta, as opposed to a distribution of acceptable gaps. They then modified Tanner's
capacity model for random platoons and resulted in the following new equation for the capacity
of a priority controlled traffic stream:

+fSh))
lexp(q'tf)

where
C capacity (vehicles/second)
= proportion of non-following vehicles in the major traffic stream
6 = standard deviation of distribution of critical gaps
f = an adjustment factor
h = average following headway
and

q'=
Joubert and Van As tested this model by comparing its estimates of absorption capacity with
those determined by microsimulation. It was assumed that the conflicting traffic stream consisted
of platoons and that acceptable gaps followed a log-normal distribution. With the adjustment
factor 0.35, the model significantly improved the estimation of capacity for the full range of
parameters tested. The model also provided fairly acceptable result when applied to cyclic flows
(result of traffic signals operation), although it was less reliable than the random platoons.

3.4 Siegloch's Method

Siegloch's work to determine the capacity on the minor stream approach is used in chapter 10 of
the 1994 HCM (Kyte et a!, 1994). The Siegloch model is a function of the major stream flow, the
critical gap and the follow-up time. The critical gap and follow-up time is derived by using
Seigloch's critical gap method. Siegloch's capacity model is given as follows:

3600
(6)

where t0 = and ta, tf and to are in seconds.

Al-Masaeid (1995) tested Siegloch's method by comparing the actual and the estimation capacity
of yield controlled streams at a one-way minor street crossing a one-way major street in Jordan.
He concluded that Siegloch's method overestimates minor stream capacity even if critical gaps
were estimated for local conditions and found that the empirical approach provided a realistic
estimation (A1-Masaeid, 1995).

4. DATA COLLECTION

A U-turn median slot on Anzac Highway, a major radial arterial road in Adelaide, South
Australia was selected as the study location for data collection. This site was chosen because:
the study would not look at the effect of geometric parameters and traffic volume on the size
of gaps accepted.
the U-turn design at the site follows the Australian Standard which provides a protected U-
turn lane and it is located on a carriageway with three through lanes.

The major data need for this study is data on vehicle headways, plus data for those headways that
were rejected and those that were accepted by U-turning vehicles to merge with conflicting
stream. These data were needed to measure the simulation capacity value, the critical gap and
follow up time. The data were collected in four consecutive days (about four hours a day), three
days for analysis purpose and one day for validation purpose.

According to Taylor et al (1996, p.243), measurement of critical gaps is accomplished in

somewhat similar fashion to saturation flows measurement. It is based on observation of the
headways between vehicles in a traffic stream. Data recording methods are also explained by
Taylor et al (1996). The manual method using pencil, paper and stopwatch is still the most
common method. Other methods of increasing interest include event recorders, video and
portable computers.

The advantages and the disadvantages Of using these methods in saturation flow measurement are
explained by Taylor et al (1996, p.2141), in which methods based on portable computers or video
recording are recommended. In this study, because the U-turning vehicles volume was relatively
low and only one minor movement had to be recorded, the portable computer method was
selected.

The computer program used to collect field data in this study was SATFLOW, as developed by
Cuddon (1992). This program enables a single observer to collect the data. SATFLOW is a
saturation flow data collection and analysis software package that assists and coordinates real-
time data input and performs preliminary data checks and saturation flow/headway analyses
(Cuddon, 1992).

Cuddon (1992) also stated that the software has potential for other uses besides saturation flow
data collection because it enables the collection of generic real-time vehicle data that may be used
to calculate many other traffic flow parameters.

Originally, the software was configured to collect saturation flows data for two lanes in which
vehicles on each lane can be classified into four different classes, car, light commercial, rigid
truck and articulated truck. In this study, the headway data had to be collected from a three lane
carriageway, plus the movement of minor stream vehicles. Thus SATFLOW could not help the
data collection process if it was used in its original form. Since the study did not require
classification of vehicles, it was decided to simplify the use of the software. The consequence of
the modification was that the data analysis module in the software could not be used, and data
analysis had to be done manually.

The keys provided by SATFLOW program were used to record the time of the conflicting stream
vehicles on each lanes crossed screen line, the time of U-turning vehicles arrived at protected U-
turn lane, and the time of U-turning vehicle crossed screen line. The keys used to record the time
of the conflicting stream vehicles crossing the screen line were 'U' for vehicles on lane 1 (the
closest lane to the median), 'I' for vehicles on lane 2 and '0' for vehicles on lanes 3 (the closest
lane to the footpath). Then, 'P' key was used to record the time of U-turning vehicles arriving at
protected U-turn lane and 'J' key was used to record the time of U-turning vehicles crossing the
screen line. At the end of each data collection 'Escape' key had to be pressed and the data would
be saved automatically. To understand how to operate the SATFLOW software, the readers are
referred to Cuddon (1992). Figure 1 shows a vehicle completing U-turn and the conditions of
survey location.
 Figure 1. Survey Location and conditions.

The modification in using the software had enable the following data to be collected:
time headway
number of vehicle on each lane
accepted and rejected gap
move-up time
lag
waiting time, and
number of vehicles in the U-turn queue

5. ESTIMATION OF GAP ACCEPTANCE AND MOVE-UP TIME PARAMETERS

Several definitions of critical gap have been produced (e.g. see Wang (2000)); each of which
affects the estimation methods for determining the critical gap value itself. In general, critical gap
is defined as a suitable size of gap in the conflicting stream which allows drivers or pedestrians to
make a safe accomplishment of the manoeuvre.

The Transportation Research Board (1985) defined the critical gap to be the median time
headway between two successive vehicles in the major Street traffic stream that is accepted by
drivers in a subject movement that must cross andlor merge with the major street flow. Recently,
Transportation Research Board (cited in Abou-Henaidy et al, 1994) modified the definition of the
critical gap to include the 'minimum time interval between vehicles in a major traffic stream
which permits one side-street vehicle at a stop controlled approach to enter the intersection'.
There are many articles in this field. One of most popular articles commonly used in studying gap
acceptance is that by Miller (1972). In this article Miller made a comparative study of a selection
of nine estimators of gap acceptance parameters. The methods investigated by Miller were Raff' s
method, probit analysis, Ashworth's method, Blunden, Clossold and Fisher's method, Drew's
method, Dawson's method, Miller's method, McNeil and Morgan's method, and the maximum
likelihood technique. Miller concluded that only Ashworth's method and maximum likelihood
gave results with a satisfactorily small bias, and Ashworth's method was slightly less precise than
maximum likelihood. Of the nine methods, Raff's method is still commonly cited in many
textbooks and articles such as in Bennett (1999), Salter (1974) and Al-Azzawi (1997).

If there is a continuous queue in the minor stream, either Siegloch's method (which provides a
direct link between gap acceptance theory and the definitions of these parameters (Kyte et a!,
1994)) or the method recommended by Taylor, Young and Bonsall (1996, p.244) could be
applied.

Meanwhile, Brilon, Troutbeck and Tracz (in Kyte et al, 1994) recommended the use of either the
maximum likelihood technique or Ashworth's method if a continuous queue is not present on the
minor stream, which was the situation found at the selected study location. To account for local
conditions, some researchers and practitioners use an empirical approach to determine the size of
critical gap, such as Al-Masaeid (1995 and 1999) and Abou-Henidi et al (1994).

According to Taylor et a! (1996) the use of maximum likelihood method requires a significant
amount of data about the size of largest rejected gaps and the size of the smallest accepted gaps.
Because the study was not designed to compare gap acceptance estimation methods but rather to
suggest one of the current priority junction models for determining U-turn capacity at median
openings, the data available in this study was limited. Determination of the critical gap parameter
was thus simplified by using the mean value of accepted gap.

Then, a limitation had to be decided to determine the accepted gap data that would be used in the
mean accepted gap calculations, as not all of the data reflected critical gap parameters (e.g. gap
sizes that were comparatively large). Firstly, the data considered being included in the mean
calculation were only the size of gaps that were used by only one vehicle. Secondly, the size of
gap that nobody will reject must be removed from the calculation. Thirdly the accepted gaps used
in the calculation should follow a log-normal distribution since this distribution is widely
accepted as a critical gap distribution, as stated by Troutbeck (1993), Taylor et al (1996), Cohen
(in Miller, 1972) and Salter (1974). Then the mean value of log-accepted gaps is the gap
acceptance parameter.

Based on the x2 test of goodness-of-fit, it was found that the accepted gap data fitted a log-normal
distribution when gap sizes equal or larger than 13 s were eliminated from the analysis, with the
probability between 0.25 and 0.10 (the computed x2 value is 14.63 with 15 degrees of freedom).
The SPSS standard normal distribution also indicates the validity of this result.

The mean value of log-accepted gap less than 13 s is 0.81 and the standard deviation is 0.13. If
these parameters are transformed back into their then the mean value of accepted gap
based on the gap acceptance parameter is 6.46s (1008 ) and the standard deviation is 1.35 (100.13).
A confidence interval test using a set of independent data indicates that the value of 6.46 s is
valid as a gap acceptance parameter (95 per cent confidence interval). Figure 2 provides an
indication of the agreement between the observed data and the true log-normal distribution.

20

10

>'
C)
C

IL 0

Figure 2. The Histogram of Log Accepted Gap with Its Normal Curve

In this study the distribution of move-up times is assumed to be the same as the accepted gaps
distribution. The move-up time is defined as the difference time between a minor stream vehicle
and the next vehicle in a queue crossing the screen line. After transforming the move-up time
data into its logarithmic value, it was found that the mean of move-up time is 3.02 s (100.48).

6. SELECTION OF PRIORITY JUNCTION MODELS

In selecting priority junction models, again the test of goodness-of-fit was employed. The two
variables compared were observed capacities which were based on application of gap acceptance
mechanism toward four sets of headway data, and estimated capacities which were based on the
application of priority junction models with respect to the parameters calculated above.

The use of gap acceptance mechanism theory to determine an absorption rate is based on several
assumptions (Taylor et al, 1996). Firstly the individuals behave consistently and are homogenous,
secondly the main stream headways follow a negative exponential distribution, and thirdly there
are always vehicles queued in the minor stream to take full advantage of every possible gap
(there is an infinite queue on the minor stream).

The other assumption which determines the observed capacity is for a given traffic situation
where drivers require a gap greater than or equal to their critical gap before proceeding. When
there is vehicles queued than an additional parameter is needed, this is 'move-up' time.

Because of the assumptions that drivers behave consistently and are homogenous then they
require the same critical gap (ta) and move-up time (tf). Thus, all those assumption can be
translated into the following set of possible events for the vehicle in the minor stream which:
gaps less than ta will not be accepted;
 gaps between ta and ta + tf will be used by one minor stream vehicle;
gaps between ta + tf and ta + 2tf will be used by two minor stream vehicles, and
in more general terms, gaps between ta + (i-l)tf and ta + itf will be used by i = 1, 2, 3, . . .minor
stream vehicles.

Troutbeck and Walsh (1994) also used the above mechanism in their study of the difference
between queueing theory and gap acceptance theory in estimating delay.

In order to calculate the observed capacity then a mathematical form of the above assumption
may be written as follows. For all gaps ta:

(8)
tf
k

= 11
(9)

i=1

where
= the number of vehicles which can use the size of gap h ?.ta.
k = the number of headways
observed/simulated capacity (vehicles per unit time)

An example may help to explain this formula. Consider the size of gap of 6 s with critical gap of
3 s and move-up time of 2 s. The value of 6 s lies within a range of ta + tf (5=3+2) and ta + 2tf
(7=3+(2*2), then according to the above assumption this size will be used by 2 minor stream
vehicles. By using equation (8) the number of minor stream vehicle is:

n = ((6-3)12)+1 = 2.5 2 vehicles.

The number of 2.5 means that the size of gap of 6 s will be used by 2 minor stream vehicles with
remaining gap of O.Stf(l s) being of insufficient size for use by another minor stream vehicle.

The traffic volumes of conflicting stream when the four sets of headways data were collected are
0.565 vehls, 0.634 vehls, 0.583 vehls and 0.587 vehls. In addition, capacity estimation using the
random platoon Tanner's formula requires the proportion of non-following vehicles and the
average headway of following vehicle. To be able to do so, the minimum free headway has to be
decided. In this study a value of four seconds was used. This value was recommended by Hoban
for Australian rural highways (in Taylor and Young, 1988) and also used by Joubert and Van As
(1994) in their research. One assumption of the gap acceptance mechanism that the main stream
headways follow a negative exponential distribution is also applicable for the random platoon
Tanner's fonnula, as this formula only considers the free gaps or inter-platoon headways which
are known to follow a negative exponential distribution (Joubert and Van As, 1994).
Table 1 shows the observed capacity volume (2) and the results of capacity estimation using the
5-priority junction' models selected and explained in the literature review. Those are Tanner's
formula (3), the NAASRA's model (4), the random platoon Tanner's formula (5), the modified
random platoon Tanner's formula (6) and Siegloch's method (7).

Table 1. Observed and Estimated Capacity Values.

Estimated capacity values

Data set Observed Tanner's NAASRA Random Modified Siegloch's
capacity formula model platoon random method
Tanner's platoon
formula Tanner's
formula
(vehls) (vehls) (vehls) (vehls) (vehls) (vehls)
1 0.089 0.018 0.018 0.098 0.086 0.020
2 0.058 0.012 0.012 0.069 0.057 0.014
3 0.102 0.016 0.016 0.114 0.105 0.018
4 0.111 0.016 0.016 0.125 0.116 0.018

This table shows that the models which are based on an assumption that conflicting vehicles
(major traffic) arrive randomly seriously underestimates the acceptable gaps in the study area in
which platooning occurs, even in the model which allows for a minimum headway.

The result of Tanner's formula which allow for a minimum headway is the same as the NAASRA
model of absorption capacity, which was originally derived from Tanner's negative exponential
distribution as well. This because the minimum headway in the conflicting stream was very short
(mostly less than 0.1 s), and so had no influence on the computations. Furthermore, if the
practical capacity of the NAASRA model was applied in which the absorption capacity must be
multiplied by a value of 0.8, then the model more seriously underestimates the acceptable gaps in
a conflicting stream.

Siegloch's model, which is currently used in the US HCM, gave slightly better estimates than the
two models above, but it is still too far from the observed capacities. Of the five models
examined, the random platoon Tanner' formula gave reasonably close estimates to observed
capacities, as did the modified random platoon Tanner' formula. Based on the x2 test only the
modified random platoon Tanner' formula is statistically acceptable.

The following results were found for the x2test calculations, with all traffic volumes converted
into vehlh:
Tanner's formula, = 5281.47 with three degrees of freedom
NAASRA model, x2 = 5116.29 with three degrees of freedom
random platoon Tanner's formula, x2 = 18.88 with three degrees of freedom
modified random platoon Tanner's formula, x2 = 1.61 with three degrees of freedom
 Siegloch's model, x2 = 4207.87 with three degrees of freedom

The computed x2 for modified random platoon Tanner's formula is 1.61 (3 dof), indicating a
probability between 0.75 and 0.50 that the model represents the capacity of U-turn. Then the
model is strongly accepted to determine U-turn capacity at median openings. The additional
explanatory power of the modified random platoon Tanner model compared to the original
version is provided by the use of the standard deviation of acceptable gaps, which is multiplied
by an adjustment factor. In this study, by trial and error it was found that an adjustment factor of
0.9 give the best result.

To strengthen the final conclusion a validation using a set of independent headway data was
done. The process of observed capacity calculation was the same as in model selection. The
observed U-turn capacity of Thursday data was 0.103 vehls with conflicting traffic flow was 0.58
vehlsec. The value of 0.104 vehls given by modified random platoon Tanner's formula is again
indicating that the model is highly reliable to determine U-turn capacity at median openings.

7. CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the analysis presented in this paper, the following conclusions may be drawn:
The modified random platoon Tanner's formula is recommended as the priority junction
traffic model which can be used to determine U-turn capacity at median openings. In addition
the modified random platoon Tanner's formula could be used to determine capacity of any
priority controlled intersection movements where platooning occurs in the conflicting stream.
As noted by Joubert and Van As (1994), the analysis also indicates that information on the
headway distribution of the major traffic stream is very important in selecting a model to
determine priority junction capacity. This is no less important than the determination of the
acceptable gap and move-up time parameters. A bias of (say) 1 s in the acceptable gap
parameter might have less effect in the difference between simulated capacity value and
estimated capacity value than the effect of the wrong selection of estimation model to be
used.
Based on the model selected, it is clear that the distribution of traffic in Anzac Highway does
not follow negative exponential distribution, but might follow a travelling queue distribution
which can be modelled as a combination of the negative exponential distribution for non-
following headway and a non-random distribution of following headways. Thus this study
could also be used to describe the distribution of traffic.
One point needs to be stressed about the modified random platoon Tanner's formula. This is
that the model requires a standard deviation parameter. To get the standard deviation value,
the acceptable gap parameter must be determined through a survey of observed traffic rather
using a given value. An alternative method might be sought to remove the use of standard
deviation of critical gaps and allow for the use of an adjustment factor. Further research is
needed to determine appropriate values of adjustment factors. These factors may depend on
factors such as the proportion of non-following vehicles, the mean platoon size, etc. Such
investigations would widen the scope for the use of the modified random platoon Tanner
model in practice.
 As also suggested by Joubert and Van As (1994), the modified random platoon Tanner model
should be considered for future inclusion in a Highway Capacity Manual.

REFERENCES

Abou-Henaidy, M., Teply, S. and Hunt, J.D. (1994) Gap acceptance investigations in Canada. In
R. Akcelik (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Highway Capacity,
Vol. 1, Australian Road Research Board, Melbourne, Australia, 1-19.
Al-Azzawi, M. (1997) An evaluation of current traffic models used to design priority junctions,
Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 38, No. 5, 267-275.
Al-Masaeid, H.R. (1995) Capacity of one-way yield-controlled intersections. Transportation
Research Record, Vol. 1484, 9-15.
Al-Masaeid, H.R. (1999) Capacity of u-turn at median openings. ITE Journal, Vol. 69, No. 6,
28-34.
Austroads (1991) Roadway capacity. Part 2 of Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice,
Austroads, Sydney.
Bennett, D.W. (1999) Elementary traffic flow theory and applications. In K.W. Ogden and S.Y.
Taylor (eds.), Traffic Engineering and Management. Department of Civil Engineering,
Monash University, Melbourne, 567-590.
Cuddon, A.P. (1992) SATFLOW Reference Manual. Department of Civil Engineering, Monash
University, Melbourne.
Greenshields, B.D. and Weida, F.M. (1978) Statistics with Applications to Highway Traffic
Analyses. Second Edition, rev. D.L. Gerlough and M.J. Huber, ENO Foundation for
Transportation Inc., Westport, Connectitut.
Joubert, H.S. and Van As, S.C. (1994) The effect of platooning on the capacity of priority
controlled intersections. In R. Akcelik (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium on Highway Capacity, Vol. 1, Australian Road Research Board, Melbourne, 315-
325.
Kyte, M., Kittelson, W., Zongzhong, T., Brilon, W., Troutbeck, R.J. and Mir, Z. 1994, New
measurements for saturation headways and critical gaps at stop-controlled intersections. In R.
Akcelik (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Highway Capacity,
Vol. 1, Australian Road Research Board, Melbourne, 345-364.
Mei, M. and Bullen, A.G.M. (1993) Lognormal distribution for high traffic flows.
Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1389, 125-128.
Miller, A.J. (1961). A queueing model for road traffic flow. Journal of the Royal Statistical
Society, Series B, Vol. 23, 64-75.
Miller, A.J. (1972) Nine estimators of gap acceptance parameters. In G.F. Newell (ed.), Traffic
Flow and Transportation. American Elsevier Publishing Co., New York.
National Association of State Road Authorities (1988) Arterial road traffic management. Part 9
of Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice, NAASRA, Sydney, Australia.
Salter, R.J. (1974) Highway Traffic Analysis and Design. Macmillan, London.
SPSS Inc. (1996) SPSS Base 7.0 Application Guide, SPSS Inc., Chicago.
Taylor, M.A.P., Miller, A.J. and Ogden, K.W. (1974) A comparison of some models for rural
traffic flow. Transportation Research, Vol. 8, 1-9.
Taylor, M.A.P. (1976) Traffic Flow Theory. Department of Civil Engineering, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia.
Taylor, M.A.P. and Young, W. (1988) Traffic Analysis: New Technology and New Solution,
Hargreen Publishing Co., Melbourne.
Taylor, M.A.P., Young, W. and Bonsall, P.W. (1996) Understanding Traffic System: Data,
Analysis and Presentation, Avebury Technical Books, Aldershot.
Transportation Research Board (1985) Special Report 209, 1985 Highway Capacity Manual,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Troutbeck, R.J. (1986) Average delay at an unsignalised intersection with the major streams each
having a dichotomised headway distribution. Transportation Science Vol.20 No. 4, 272-286.
Troutbeck, R.J. (1993) Effect of heavy vehicles at Australian traffic circles and unsignalized
intersections. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1389, 54-60.
Troutbeck, R.J. and Walsh, D.J. (1994) The difference between queueing theory and gap
acceptance theory. In R. Akcelik (ed.), Proceedings of the Second International Symposium
on Highway Capacity, Vol. 2. Australian Road Research Board, Melbourne, 6 18-635.
Wang, Z. (2000) The effects of reference line positioning on gap acceptance data. Road and
Transport Research Vol. 9 No. 4, 2-28.
 FUZZY MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS
FOR INTER-CITY TRAVEL DEMAND MODELLING

AMILIA ALDIAN Michael A. P. TAYLOR

PhD Research Student Professor of Transport Planning

Transport System Centre
School of Geoinformatics, Planning and Building
University of South Australia
North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
Fax: +61 88302 1880
Email: amiyyO0 1
Transport System Centre
School of Geoinformatics, Planning and Building
University of South Australia
North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
Fax: +61 88302 1880
Email: map.taylor@unisa.edu.au

Abstract: The paper presents the development of a new approach in modelling travel demand for
inter-city travel, which combines a behavioural travel demand model and a direct demand model.
Fuzzy multicriteria analysis is applied to calculate aggregate utilities (trip production power and
zone attractiveness). This gives the direct demand model the behavioural basis of a disaggregate
model in which travel choice is often considered as a decision making process. This approach
could provide a bridge between aggregate and disaggregate models as well as between
conventional and unconventional models. It also combines two different theories in decision-
making, namely discrete choice theory (which is based on probability theory) and fuzzy
multicriteria analysis (which is based on fuzzy set theory). The multinomial logit model is
applied to calculate trip distribution. The approach used in this study will make the direct demand
models more attractive as simplified tools, especially for developing countries. The application of
the approach for modelling intercity passenger travel demand in Central Java (Indonesia) gives a
promising result.

Key Words: Fuzzy multicriteria analysis; Direct demand model; Intercity travel.

1. BACKGROUND

The main consideration of the transport planning process as well as transport project evaluation is
the benefit taken by traveller on which the project will be evaluated. Thus, travel demand data as
well as travel demand forecasting model are crucial in the whole process. As the basic of any
transport planning process, a travel demand-forecasting model, also called origin-destination (0-
D) matrices estimation, must be of first interest amongst transport planners before conducting any
transport studies and projects.

There are many models available to forecast travel demand. These can be categorised using two
different criteria, first based on number of individuals represented by the model and second based
on the data used. Based on the number of individuals represented by the model, there are two
classes of model. The first is called aggregate or first generation models, which are also called
zonal level models. The first generation models represent the behaviour of more than one
individual, or perhaps an 'average' individual. The second is called disaggregate or second
generation models, which are sometimes also referred to as the behavioural approach. The
second-generation models attempt to represent the behaviour of each individual (Ortuzar and
Willumsen, 1994).

The first-generation models have been criticised as lacking a behavioural basis (Oppenheim,
1995), but they are still used in many studies, especially in developing countries (Wirasinghe and
Kumarage, 1998). Daly and Ortuzar (in Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994) stated that there is no
model providing a definitive approach to all situations. This statement addressed the issue of
whether disaggregate or aggregate approaches were to be preferred. Furthermore Lundqvist and
Mattsson (2001), in a review of national transport models, stated that the application of an
aggregate model in Britain is as successful as the applications of disaggregate models in other
European countries.

Based on the data used, there are also two classes of model. The first is termed the conventional
models. In this class, the source of data used in modelling travel demand is mainly from direct
observations like home interview or roadside interview. The second is termed the
unconventional models, which is also often termed as simplified or quick response travel demand
models. The unconventional models use mostly readily available data such as traffic flows and
socio-economic data as their main emphasis is to reduce costs and avoid the other problems of
the conventional models. The application of the unconventional travel demand models is usually
at the aggregate level. Furthermore, the unconventional models can also be categorised into two
different groups based on the technique applied. First is models which produce O-D matrices by
synthesising from observed flows on the links in the network (also termed as traffic count based
models), and second is by modelling such as Wilson's gravity models of trip distribution, direct
demand models, etc. (Easa, 1993a, 1993b; Tayloret al., 1996).

This paper deals with one of the simplified models that are direct demand or simultaneous
models. As one of the unconventional models, the direct demand models have the practical
advantages that they can use readily available data and useful for quick response application. This
model also has potential to combine with the traffic count based models. The main criticisms of
these models are that they need a large number of parameters and, theoretically, they are purely
descriptive e.g., based on statistical modelling techniques (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994;
Oppenheim, 1995). The other disadvantage is that the direct demand model cannot include
qualitative variables, e.g. service quality.

On the other hand, the second-generation models, which have behavioural basis, could have the
following drawbacks:
The models may be unsuitable for developing countries in many cases, as they are largely data
intensive (Wirasinghe and Kumarage, 1998). The models also demand from the analyst a high
level of statistical and econometric skills for their use (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994).
The models cannot estimate a number of potential travellers of origin zone (trip generation). It
is usually assumed given and must be estimated out of the models using residential location
model, employment model and so forth (Oppenheim, 1995)
The analyst must find a reasonable method for aggregating model results as in most cases the
indicators of demand and supply of transport facilities must be provided at aggregate level,
and also many of the models have failed to produce forecasts, sometimes because the models
demand data which cannot reasonably be forecast (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994).
This paper attempts to modify the direct demand model by giving a behavioural basis to the
model to forecast inter-city travel. The behavioural basis used is similar to that used in the
disaggregate models that consider travel demand is the result of a decision-making process. The
main difference is that fuzzy multicriteria analysis is applied in developing the deterministic part
of utility function.

This approach also combine two different theories in modelling individual choice namely discrete
choice theory (which is based on probability theory) and fuzzy multicriteria analysis (which is
based on fuzzy set theory), while those two different theories are usually applied separately.
There some others authors who applied fuzzy set theory in transportation choice problems with
different approaches. For example Reddy and Chakroborty (1998) applied a fuzzy, inference
technique to determine proportion of traffic using a particular route in route choice behaviour
problem. Ridwan (2002) introduced a fuzzy model in traffic assignment problem in order to more
realistically represent traveller's decision making.

According to Zimmerman (1991) fuzzy set theory and probability theory are not substitutes, but
rather they complement each other. He indicated that the fuzzy set theory seems to be more
adaptable to different contexts, which implies the need to adapt the theory to a context in order to
make the theory an appropriate modelling tool, and meanwhile the probability theory is well-
developed and uniquely defined with respect to operation and structure.

Chen and Hwang (1992) stated that probability is a way to model incomplete information about
the external environment surrounding human beings and does not capture the imprecision in
human behaviour. On the other hand fuzzy set theory is a prefect means to model the subjectivity
of human behaviour. Then they suggested that a good decision making tool should take into
account human subjectivity, rather than employing only objective probability measures.

This approach could provide a bridge between aggregate and disaggregate models as well as
between conventional and unconventional models. It is also very suitable for developing
countries.

The next sections describe the fuzzy multicretira analysis, the model development and estimation,
the application of the approach in modelling intercity travel demand in Central Java, discussion
and conclusion.

2. FUZZY MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS

It is common in everyday life that people have to make a decision in selecting an option (out of
several alternatives or offer) or have to rank the alternatives based on some criteria. In the
decision-making field, the kind of situations is mostly handled using a method termed
multicriteria analysis (Chen and Hwang, 1992).

The method has been widely used and has proven very effective in solving problems with precise
data in many fields. For example multicnteria analysis has been used to rank urban transport
system projects (Gomes, 1989), and to aid environmental decision-making (Salminen et al.,
1998).
In any decision-making process, it is also common that one or more criteria are imprecise in
which those may come from unquantifiable information (e.g. safety, comfort, etc.), incomplete
information (e.g. speed, such as "about 100 km/h", etc.), unobtainable information (e.g. a very
secret information, high cost data, etc.), and partial ignorance (e.g. only knows part of the facts)
(Chen and Hwang, 1992). Since the application of fuzzy set theory to multicriteria analysis, it is
now possible to include the imprecise, subjective and qualitative criteria in the decision-making
process. There also have been many application of fuzzy multicriteria analysis, for instance to
evaluate attack helicopters (Cheng et al., 1999), to evaluate performance of bus companies (Yeh
et a!., 2000) and to evaluate environmental impacts of road traffic (Klungboonkrong and Taylor,
1999).

The multicriteria analysis problem can be expressed in a matrix format, namely a decision matrix.
For instance an individual H has to make a decision, then a matrix H is formed where there must
be alternatives/options A1 (i=1, 2, 3,. ..,m) in y axis and criteria (j=1, 2, 3,.. .,n) in x axis. The
matrix contains values, which are the rating of alternative A1 with respect to criteria

Xl X2 ... xn
A1 x11 x12 ...
H= A2 x2l x22 ...

Am xml ...

There are many methods in the multicriteria analysis field in order to select or rank the
alternatives (Hwang and Yoon, 1981). The inclusion of fuzzy number to represent some or all
attributes in the classical method has expanded the classical methods to be fuzzy multicriteria
analysis.

Before developing decision matrix, there are some steps need to be prepared before valuing each
alternative based on attributes selected (Ai), those are: determining the attributes and fuzzy
attributes (Xj), and determining attribute weights.

In term of transport, the attributes could consist of the transport system's level of service and the
socio-economic conditions of travellers. It is also possible that an attribute has several sub-
attributes, for instance the level of service of routes as an attribute of selecting destination usually
consist of length of the route, road geometry, etc.

In dealing with fuzzy attributes, there are two steps: converting linguistic terms to fuzzy number
and assigning crisp score to fuzzy number.

Eight conversion scales are provided in Chen and Hwang (1992) to convert linguistic terms into
fuzzy numbers, in which the use of each scale depend on the total number of linguistic terms to
be converted. If the decision maker is familiar with the decision problem, they pointed that a
detailed conversion is very much suggested.

The fuzzy numbers are assigned to crisp values using Chen and Hwang method, which is based
on assumption that a crisp score of a fuzzy number can be obtained by maximising set
and minimising set technique. Interested readers are referred to Chen and Hwang
(1992). After this step, the decision-making can be performed using any of the multicriteria
analysis methods, as the decision matrix will contain only crisp data.

The attribute weight, a numerical measure to the relative importance of the criterion in valuing a
set of alternatives, is an important part of fuzzy multicriteria analysis. It could be calculated by
several methods like entropy maxirnisation or the use of pairwise comparison of the Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP). If the decision maker is familiar with the decision problem, then it can
be given directly (Chen and Hwang, 1992). In a case that an attribute has sub-attributes, the
weight of the sub-attributes must also be determined, so that the value of the attribute can be
calculated.

We use coefficient of correlation (r) between attributes and observed travel demand divided by
total (r) as attribute weight. This is done to ensure that the total attribute weight is 1. As
coefficient of correlation (r) indicates the closeness of two variables, so the higher is the
correlation coefficient (r) the higher is the weight of attribute in the decision matrix.

(1)

i=I

=1

To calculate the numerical values of each alternative with respect to all attributes in the decision
matrix, we use the following formula:

X!/ )WJ) i=l,2 ,m, j=1,2 ,n (2)

j=l

In this formula the attributes chosen in a decision matrix is first normalised by maximum value
(max of each attribute (so that they will be in a single dimension comparable units and to
ensure that a changes of an attribute of an alternative will not affect other alternatives). These
values are then powered by their attribute weights. The following is an example of attribute
weight calculation, given the coefficient of correlation as follow: 0.2, 0.3 and 0.3, then attribute
weights are -0.25, 0.375 and 0.375.

3. MODEL DEVELOPMENT & ESTIMATION

3.1. Model Development

The direct demand models are closely related to the general econometric models of demand. The
application of the models were claimed to avoid some of the weaknesses of the conventional
four-step model of travel demand (mostly applied in first generation model). The attractiveness of
direct demand models is that they calibrate simultaneously trip generation, distribution and mode
choice, including attributes of competing modes and a wide range of level of service and activity
variables.

The application of direct demand models has been mainly in the inter-urban context, with very
few applications in urban areas as these models are claimed as an attractive proposition for
demand analysis where the zones are large. Quandt and Baumol (1966) developed one of the
most influential studies in direct demand models context, which is well known as abstract mode
demand. There are some models with different forms that have been applied in intercity contexts
where some applications suggested that the direct demand model give a better fit than a gravity
model (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994). The form of the direct demand model is essentially linear
or quasi-linear statistical regression:

(3)

where and are parameters to be calibrated. The Xkijmr represent various attributes of
demand zones, destination, modes and routes (Oppenheim, 1995).

The second-generation models are based on an explicit principle of human behaviour; they
consider that travel demand is the result of a decision-making process by travellers. There are two
basic assumptions within this model: first is that travellers are assumed to choose a given
alternative (i.e. of making travel, or of a given destination, mode, or route, or combination
thereof) based on a value of the preference (utility) that the traveller attaches to that particular
alternative, or combination of alternatives with the highest utility, and second is that the traveller
has a perfect capability to value the preference, but the analyst has incomplete information,
therefore uncertainty must be taken into account. To include these two basic assumptions the
utility function used in this model must include two parts, a deterministic part (V111) and a
random part

= (4)

more specifically can be defined as the utility of individual n associates with alternative i in
the choice set A linear in the parameters function of the deterministic part of utility is denoted
as follows

(5)

represent alternative attributes, which contain socio-economic characteristics and level-of-

service characteristics.

Oppenheim (1995) stated that the uncertainty represented by the random part of utility could
come from the unobservable, or unmeasurable alternative attributes (e.g., "force of habit"), or
errors in the measurement of the attributes that have been included. To capture the uncertainty,
the disaggregate models must assume a probability distribution of the error terms in the utility
function. There are two families of the disaggregate models based on this assumption. The first is
called the logit (logistic probability unit) family, it assumes that the error terms are independent
and identically Gumbel distributed. The second is called the probit family, which assumes that
the error terms are normally distributed, which is supported by central limits theorem from
statistical analysis.

Thus this theory is only concerned with predicting the probability that given individual will
choose an alternative within the available choice set. Overall this theory is then called random
utility theory or discrete choice theory, which is based on deterministic decision rules where the
utilities are represented by random variables (see Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985); Oppenheim
(1995); Ben-Akiva and Bierlaire (2002) for details).

This paper adopts the structure of disaggregate models, but the deterministic part of utility
function is developed at aggregate level. The use of aggregate data in the discrete choice method
could be a bridge between disaggregate and aggregate models. Like in any aggregate models, this
approach assumes that travellers in a particular zone have similar socio economic characteristics,
so that their travel behaviour are also similar and are affected by aggregate socio economic
characteristics of the zone. On the other hand, the choice set is also aggregated into zones, in
which the zone attractiveness is represented by aggregate socio economics characteristics of
destination zones.

Thus, the socio economics characteristics of the origin zone of travellers and the socio economic
characteristics of the choice set (destination zones) determine travel decisions. Assuming that the
socio economic characteristics influence a travel decision linearly, then the trip from an origin
zone to a destination zone is a function of trip generation power of each zone (V1) and zone
attractiveness The fuzzy multicriteria analysis is applied to calculate V1 and

As all the individuals in origin zone i have the same characteristic (V1), then the probability of a
destination zone to be chosen depend on its attractiveness ) only. Taking into account the
random term (error terms) to capture the uncertainty, the utility that travellers in origin zone i
associates with alternative j in the destination choice has the same form as (4).

Assuming that the error terms are independent and identically Gumbel distributed, the probability
of travellers in zone i chose destinationj within the choice set is given by

me (6)

which is best known as multinomial logit model (13d is parameter of destination choice). The
derivation of multinomial logit model is well explained in many books and articles (see for
example Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985), Oppenheim (1995) , Ortuzar and Willumsen (1994),
Ben-Akiva and Bierlaire (2002)).

Given the zone attractiveness values, then the expected received utilities (W1) of travelling from
zone i (Openheim, 1995) are
 13 d

So that the probability of people of zone i deciding to travel is equal to

(8)
,(v1+w1)
=

where 13t is parameter of deciding to travel. If P1 values have close correlation with observed trip
generation values (t1), then the trip generation model is simply the function of P

T1 = (9)

and modelled trips between i and j are given by

(10)

3.2. Model Estimation

Based on the structure of the model, then parameters need to be estimated are destination
parameter (f3d) and trip decision parameter

13d is determined by Hyman's method (Hyman, 1969), which is usually used for calibrating
gravity model parameter. The parameter is determined once the mean modelled trip cost (cm) is
sufficiently close to mean observed trip cost (c0). Meanwhile 13t is determined by nave approach,
where a value of assumed 13t's is taken when the coefficient correlation between observed trip
generation and P1 reaches maximum value.

4. APPLICATION

The approach is applied to develop the intercity travel demand model for Central Java, Indonesia.
The intercity travel demand data are taken from the 1996 national origin destination survey
(MOCRI, 1997). The socio economic data are taken from Central Java in figures 1997 (Central
Java Statistic Office, 1997), meanwhile we calculate the transport level of service (road user
costs).

In determining the trip generation power of each zone (V1) the following attributes are selected:
population density (PD) and gross domestic regional product (GDRP). Meanwhile the attributes
considered to influence zone attractiveness are: road user cost (RUC), and number of hotel
room (NEIR). The population density and gross domestic regional product give the highest
correlation coefficients with trip production (t1) (see Table 1), and number of hotel room give the
highest correlation with trip attraction (ti) (see Table 2). The total road user costs has three sub-
attributes namely distance from an origin zone to all destination zones within study area, road
geometry and ride quality. These sub-attributes are input of road user costs calculation in
Highway Development and Management version 4 (HDM-4) model (Bennett and Paterson,
2000). The road user cost between an origin i to a destination j is a result of
multiplication of distance with road geometry and ride quality (rqjj). The RUC1J is
determined using the all-or-nothing assignment method.

(11)

All the sub-attributes of total road user costs are fuzzy meanwhile the other two attributes are
crisp. The distances are converted into 11 fuzzy numbers, such as less than 40 km, about 40 km,
about 80 km, and the last one is more than 360 km. The distance is considered fuzzy due to
following reason: most travellers would not know the exact distance between cities and in fact
each traveller starts to travel from different points within an origin zone to different points in the
destination zone, so the fuzzy distance could represent these conditions. It also means that the
fuzzy distance can overcome the drawback of models that assume the origin and destination of
travel must be from and to a node, such as in a gravity model. The use of fuzzy distance also
enables the approach to take account of external trips.

The road geometry and ride quality are considered fuzzy as there is incomplete data, and again
the travellers would not know the exact condition of these two sub-attributes. The conversions to
fuzzy numbers of these two sub-attributes are based on data aggregation provided by the HDM-4
model. The road geometry is converted to 6 fuzzy numbers namely A (straight and level), B
(mostly straight and gently undulating or bendy and generally level), C (bendy and gently
undulating), D (bendy and severely undulating), E (winding and gently undulating) and F
(winding and severely undulating). The ride quality is converted to 4 fuzzy numbers namely
good, fair, poor and bad. The membership functions of those fuzzy numbers are shown below, in
which the diagonal solid line represents p1nin(x) and diagonal broken line represents jtmax(x). The
membership functions of those fuzzy numbers are shown in figure 1, 2 and 3.

Figure 1. Membership Functions of Fuzzy Numbers less than 40, about 40, about 80,..., and
more than 360.
 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10
R08d GeOmetry

Figure 2. Membership Functions of Fuzzy Numbers A, B, C, D, E and F.

o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ride

Figure 3. Membership Functions of Fuzzy Numbers good, fair, poor and bad.

The RUCU is calculated after assigning crisp score to fuzzy number (deftizzification), where it is
usually done before defuzzification using fuzzy arithmetic method. This new approach is
preferred to fuzzy arithmetic following the experience of Cheng et al. (1997) who found an
interesting result from their study, that the application of fuzzy arithmetic will cause some
information loss or more fuzziness and may thus lead to mistakes in decision-making.

Table 1. Coefficient Correlations (trip production and other variables)

t1 GDRP PD Population Income
t, 1 .475 .23( .4W
GDRP 1

PD -.044 1 .342
Population .23( .481 1
Income .754 .342 1

Table 2. Coefficient Correlations (trip attraction and other variables)

NHR No. of No. of RUC
market industry
1 .801 -.05U -.8Z
NHR .80( .03f -.140
No. of market .031 1 .29f .1
No. of industry -.141 .291 1

RUC .1OE 1
Given the coefficient of correlations in table 2 above, the weight of RUCIJ is 0.51(0.83/1.63) and
the weight of NHRJ is 0.49 (0.80/1.63). The zone attractiveness (Vu) is calculated using the
following formula:

RUC.. NHR.
V.. = ( +( (12)

by using the Hyman,s method, we find the 13d value of 1.092. It gives satisfactory results, where
the difference between cm and c0 is 0. The 13d is then also used to calculate W1.

Based on the table 1, the weight of GDRPI is 0.56 (0.47/0.85) and the weight of PD1 is 0.44
(0.38/0.85) and then the formula used to calculate trip generation power of each zone (V1) is
given by

GRDP1 )O.56 PD1 )O.44

= +( (13)
max max PD1

The 13tof 0.1 gives the highest correlation coefficient between P1 and t1, which is 0.80. The trip
production model is given by

1 =6153.776+0.658(2P,4) (14)

the coefficient of determination is 0.79 (adjusted R2 is 0.78) and the F-statistic is 123.015 (which
is significant at 0.0 1%).

5. DISCUSSION

This approach produces quite good estimates. The low of coefficient of determination at the trip
generation stage is in fact reflecting the conditions of available data, where the correlation
coefficients between variables and observed trip production are very low. This condition was also
reported by Sjafruddin et al. (1999), they found very low coefficient of determination when
modelling regional road transport freight demand in Java Island.

Given the data condition, then the application of traditional model would not produce better
estimate. For instance the best trip generation model of traditional model is

Ti = 12445.789 + 4.996(PD) + 0.0134 (GDRP) (15)

The R2 of 0.3 86 is much worse than the result of the developed approach above. This approach
has increased the model performance significantly. Possible improvement could be done by
separating the origin destination matrix into different modes (for instance public transport users
and private transport users), separating travellers into socio economic groups as well as
introducing new variables reflecting urbanisation, under-development, transfers, a mode-abstract
cost and intrinsic features as suggested by Wirasinghe and Kumarage (1998).
Overall the strengths of this approach may be summarised as follows:
By applying the two theories together, then this idea could capture all sources of the
uncertainty. The frizzy set theory would treat the uncertainty that come from vagueness
(arising from human subjectivity) and the probability theory would treat the uncertainty that
come from randomness (non-deterministic nature of the problem). For example the fuzzy set
theory does not capture measurement errors but the probability theory does, and in contrast
the probability theory cannot include immeasurable and unobservable attributes but the fuzzy
set theory can. The application of this idea can also estimate the number of potential
travellers of each origin zone.
Theoretically, this approach has behavioural basis applied in the disaggregate model and
reduce the uncertainty, and practically, this approach reduce costs, ease of application, and
the observation that the linguistic approach subjectively determined by modeller or using
results from other studies can include unquantifiable, incomplete or unavailable data in the
model. Those practical benefits should be even greater for developing countries where
population and land use change rapidly, and the cost of qualified professional work, technical
resources and reliable data is high.
This approach has been able to show that socio-economic characteristics of both origin and
destination zones as well as travel impedance can be combined to connect trip generation and
trip distribution stages, and possibly mode choice and route choice as well, which cannot be
done by first generation models. By doing so, any socio economic changes in destination
zones as well as travel impedance can be taken into account in trip generation stage. This
approach also increases the statistical significance of the traditional model.
The use of fuzzy distance could overcome the weakness of models assuming that the origins
and destinations of trips are centroids of zones.
When a prior OD matrix is unavailable, this approach could be extended to improve the
structure of traffic count based models.

Meanwhile, the main weakness of this approach is as for other aggregate models, where the
model is estimated using average zonal variables, these are the presence of aggregation biases
and ecological correlation in the model.

6. CONCLUSIONS

The paper indicates that the application of fuzzy multicriteria analysis in direct demand models
could give a behavioural basis to the model and give better estimate than traditional model. The
result of the application of the developed approach in modelling Central Java intercity passenger
travel demand is quite promising. The future research should try different attributes, different
conversion scales, different trip assignment methods, and different logit or probit model.

Given the structure and the calibration method, this approach might have potential to be
combined with traffic count based model. Furthermore the application of nested logit model in
this approach may be able to estimate the volumes of different class of vehicles in the traffic.
Assuming the prior OD matrix is unavailable, attribute weights could be determined by modeller
subjective judgment, group decision making, borrowing from other studies or taking small
sample of travellers regarding variables affecting their travel decision as well as the variables
weight. Meanwhile other parameters could be determined by naive method.
 REFERENCES

Ben-Akiva, M.E. and Lerman, S.R. (1985) Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application
to Travel Demand. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Ben-Akiva, M.E. and Bierlaire, lvi. [Online, accessed 25 September 2002] Discrete Choice
Methods and Their Applications to Short Term Travel Decisions, available at URL:
http ://dmawww .epfl .chlroso.mosaic/mbi/handbook-tinal.htm.

Bennett, C.R. and Paterson, W.D.O. (2000) The Highway Development and Management Series
Volume Five: A Guide to Calibration and Adaptation, The World Road Association (PIARC),
Paris and The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Central Java Statistical Office (1997) Central Java in Figures 1997. Central Java Statistical
Office, Semarang.

Chen, S.J., and Hwang, C.L. (1992) Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes
in Econom. and Math. System 375, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Cheng, C.H., Yang, K.L., and Hwang, C.L. (1999) Evaluating attack helicopters by AHP based
linguistic variable weight, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 116, 425-435.

Easa, S.M. (1993a) Urban transportation in practice I: conventional analysis, Journal of

Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 6, 793-8 15.

Easa, S.M. (1993b) Urban transportation in practice II: quick response and special topics,
Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 6, 8 16-834.

Hwang, C.L., and Yoon, K. (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and
Applications. Springer-Verlag.

Hyman, G.M. (1969) The calibration of trip distribution models, Environment and Planning,
Vol. 1,No.3, 105-112.

Gomes, L.F.A.M. (1989) Multicriteria ranking of urban transportation system alternatives,

Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 23, No. 1, 43-52.

Klungboonkrong, P. and Taylor, M.A.P. (1999) An integrated planning tool for evaluating road
environmental impacts, Journal of Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering,
Vol. 14, 335-345.

Lundqvist, L. and Mattson, L.G. (2001) National transport models: Introduction and comparative
analysis, in Lundqvist, L. and Mattson, L.G. (eds), National Transport Model: Recent
developments and Prospects. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
MOCRI (Ministry of Communication of the Republic of Indonesia) (1997) National origin
destination study. Final Report, Ministry of Communication of the Republic of Indonesia,
Jakarta.

Oppenheim. N. (1995) Urban Travel Demand Modelling: From Individual Choice to

General Equilibrium. John Wiley & Sons, USA.

Ortuzar, J de D. and Willumsen, L.G. (1994) Modelling Transport ed.). John Wiley &
Sons, England.

Quandt, R. and Baumol, W. (1966) The demand for abstract transport modes: theory and
Measurement, Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 6, No. 2, 13-26.

Reddy, K.H., and Chakroborty, P. (1998) A fuzzy inference based assignment algorithm to
estimate O-D matrix from link volume counts, Comput., Environ, and Urban Systems, Vol. 22,
No. 5, 409-423.

Ridwan, M. (2002) Fuzzy preference based traffic assignment problem. Paper accepted for
presentation in the International Workshop on Intelligent Transport System, Adelaide, 19 July
2002.

Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J., and Lahdalema, R. (1998) Comparing multicriteria methods in the
context of environmental problems, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 104,
485-496.

Sjafruddin, A., Astuti, R.D., and Frazila, R.B. (1999) Regional freight transport demand
modelling in the Java Island, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies,
Vol. 3, No. 3, 303-3 13.

Taylor, M.A.P., Young, W. and Bonsall, P.W. (1996) Understanding Traffic System: Data,
Analysis and Presentation. Avebury Technical Books, England.

Teodorovic, D. and Vukadinovic, K. (1998) Traffic Control and Transport Planning: A Fuzzy
Sets and Neural Networks Approach. Kluwer Academic, The Netherlands.

Triantaphyllou, E. and Lin, C.T. (1996) Development and evaluation of five fuzzy multiattribute
decision-making methods, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol 14, 281-3 10.

Triantaphyllou, B., Shu, B., Sanchez, S.N. and Ray, T. (1998) Multicriteria decision making: an
operational research approach. In J.G. Webster (Ed), Encyclopedia of Electrical and
Electronics Engineering, Vol. 15, 175-186, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Willumsen, L.G. (1981) Simplified transport demand models based on traffic counts,
Transportation, Vol. 10, No. 3, 257-278.

Wirasinghe, S.C. and Kumarage, A.S. (1998) An aggregate demand model for intercity passenger
travel in Sri Lanka, Transportation, Vol. 25, 77-98.
Yeh, C.H., Deng, H., and Chang, Y.H. (2000) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making for
performance evaluation of bus companies, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol.
126, 459-473.

Zeleny, M. (1982) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Zimmerman, H.J. (1991) Fuzzy Sets Theory and Its Application. Kiuwer Academic, Boston.
 A CONSISTENT METHOD TO DETERMINE FLEXIBLE CRITERIA WEIGHTS
FOR MULTICRITERIA TRANSPORT PROJECT EVALUATION
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

AMILIA ALDIAN Michael A. P. TAYLOR

PhD Research Student Professor of Transport Planning
Transport System Centre Transport System Centre
School of Geoinformatics, Planning and Building School of Geoinformatics, Planning and Building
University of South Australia University of South Australia
North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
Fax: +61 88302 1880 0
Fax: +61 88302 1880
Email: amiyyOO 1 edu.au Email: map.taylor@unisa.edu.au

Abstract: In transport project evaluation, the impacts can be viewed from various aspects. So
there is always a conflict of analysis in regard with the impacts of the project. From some
aspects point of view, the impacts are often considerably difficult to be valued in monetary
terms. These conditions make the application of monetary evaluation such Cost-Benefit
Analysis alone often inadequate for transport evaluation. These limitations have lead to the
development of non-monetary evaluation method known as multicriteria analysis. The use of
multicriteria analysis in transportation project evaluation enable decision maker to express
his/her view in decision making process. It could also encourage public involvement in the
evaluation. The main challenge of multicriteria analysis application is how to determine
criteria weights. Different decision maker is likely to give different weight on a criterion.
Thus, criteria weights determination in turn could be time consuming and costly. This paper
introduces a multicriteria analysis method than can be applied in developing countries.

Key Words: Multicriteria analysis; Criteria weight; Transport project evaluation.

1. BACKGROUND

Problems of selecting an alternative out of a set of alternative are ordinarily experienced by

many organizations from the simplest one such as an individual to a complex one such as a
nation. The decision to select an alternative is often uneasy. The selection process often
involves several criteria to value. In decision making field such decision making processes are
handled using multicriteria analysis (MCA) methods.

The use of multicnteria analysis in transport project evaluation is considered since there is
always a conflict of analysis in regard with the impacts of the project. The conflict arises as
the impacts can be viewed from various aspects (i.e. technical, socio-economic,
environmental and political), so that the transport evaluation will be characterised with a
process to find acceptable compromise alternatives. From some aspects point of view, the
impacts are often considerably difficult to be valued in monetary terms. These conditions
make the application of CBA alone often inadequate for transport evaluation. Even when all
the impacts can be converted in monetary terms, we still cannot take into account explicitly
non-monetary important criteria such as political priorities in the CBA (Tsamboulas et al.,
1999).
Bristow and Nellthrop (2000) stated that transport project evaluation is generally seen as a toll
that provides relevant information to decision-makers in order to prioritising projects within a
programme; choosing between alternative solution to a common problem; determining social
value for money of particular projects; and deciding when an investment should be
undertaken. Thus, evaluation of transport project must be able to follow a situation where
decision is made based on consensus and compromise as it will be characterised by a plurality
of actors, ideas, and interest (Giorgi and Tandon, 2002).

The use of multicriteria analysis in transportation project evaluation enable decision maker to
express his/her view in decision making process. It could also encourage public involvement
in the evaluation. The main challenge of multicriteria analysis application is how to determine
criteria weights. Different decision maker is likely to give different weight on a criterion.
Thus, criteria weights determination in turn could be time consuming and costly.

This paper is aimed to presents a criteria weight determination method that have consistency
and flexibility. The consistency side is represented by method algorithm and the flexibility
side is represented by the role of public community and the decision taker in setting criteria
weights. A special attention is given to the degree of applicability of the method, so that it
could be applied in developing countries.

2. MULTICRITERIA TRANSPORT PROJECT EVALUATION

Amongst many multi-criteria analysis methods, Tsamboulas et al. (1999) identified five most
suitable methods for transport evaluation after reviewing the methods on the basis of their
track record of application and user acceptance in the appraisal practice, and also examining
methods on the basis of their applicability, data requirements, ease of use, and utility of
results to different set of problem situation. Those five methods are REGIME, ELECTRE
family, analytical hierarchy process (AHP), multiple attribute utility approach (MAUT), and
ideal point approach (ADAM method). The last three methods (AHP, MAUT, and ADAM)
can be classified in one class namely additive methods.

Furthermore, Tsamboulas et al. (1999) evaluated those five methods based on their adequacy
in handling complex and multidimensional evaluation of transportation projects. A method is
considered to be adequate if it has four main characteristics namely transparency, simplicity,
robustness, and accountability. A method is considered to be transparent if it is understood
and well interpreted by decision makers. A method is considered to be simple if it can provide
a crisp and well-defined method to represent complex and multidimensional decision
situations. A method is considered to be robust if it can be used to analyse inputs related to
the performance of different transport initiatives and to produce simple output able to be used
to evaluate direct and indirect effects of the initiatives. Accountability of multicnteria analysis
methods means that the methods must be bale to be used to track back the decision through
different stages of the process.

Tsamboulas et al. (1999) did not come to a conclusion that a certain method is the optimum
method for transport project evaluation. They suggested that the additive methods are the
most straightforward methods for transport project appraisal and Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) is the method that satisfies almost all the listed criteria. In addition, based on the
application of those five methods, Tsamboulas et al. (1999) stated that the outcome of A}{P
method might be considered as a compromise solution.
Sayers et al., (2003) also recommended the use of additive methods, especially the linear
additive model (SAW). As stated in the previous section AHP is a variant of SAW. The linear
additive model is widely used in the public sector decisions. It is a method that is robust and
largely intuitive response to the problem of rank ordering of transport initiatives. Within this
method, the various impacts of each alternative of transport project are weighted using
numerical values called criteria weights. The weighted criteria are then totalled up to derive a
single value for each alternative by which the alternatives are ranked (see formula 5.4). This
method is similar to the cost benefit analysis (CBA) where monetary weightings are applied.
In general the basic form of simple additive weighting (SAW) method is (Voogd, 1983;
Jankowski, 1995):

sj=CyWj (1)

or

SI Cl! Cl2 ... C,, W1

S2 =
(2)

Sm Cmi Cm2 W,,

'Where S, is appraisal score for alternative i, and is the score of alternative i with respect to
criteriaj (usually normalised) and w3 is the weight of criteria j are as before. It implies that the
higher the value of S, the higher is the rank. If we have n criteria, then we will have weight
vector (W) shown in the equation 4.1 (Chen and Hwang, 1992).

n
WT =(w1,w2 ,w,,) and =1 (3)

The main difficulty in applying linear additive model to transport project appraisal is in
determining criteria weights (wi). The use of the decision maker value of judgments to
determine criteria weights was unsuccessful in France, where it wasted public funds and
produced clearly irrational decisions. It also happened that large differences between modes in
important criteria such as the value of time or index of efficiency. For these reasons, the
multi-criteria evaluation is left and returns to the use of monetary evaluation where
standardised monetary values are used for most criteria (Quinet, 2000).

Setting a consistent standard set of criteria's weights could actually solve it, but it is argued
that the weight of a criterion could be varying in different cases. It can also reduce flexibility
of the method in taking into account the particular objectives of each project. On the other
hand, giving full freedom to the decision-takers could lead to the problem experienced in
France and to the lack of transparency and accountability. It could then be highlighted that
there is a need of criteria weights determination method that are both consistent as well as
flexible (Sayers et a!., 2003).
3. ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

The definition and the interpretation of criteria weights are different between authors. Because
of the difficulties in measuring and interpreting the criteria weights, it is generally stated that
criterion weight measures the importance of a criterion in the multicriteria analysis problem
under consideration.

The roles of criteria weights are also different depending on multicriteria analysis methods
(Choo et al, 1999). Criteria weights determination is an important part of multicriteria
analysis as alternatives are selected based on several criteria and criterion weight. Criteria
weights are the key point in obtaining the total scores of alternatives and most importantly the
conclusion of multicriteria analysis problems. Most multicriteria analysis methods use criteria
weights to assess the overall scores of the alternatives.

The criteria weights determination methods could be classified into two main groups namely
objective approaches and subjective approaches. the objective approaches, criteria weights
are derived from information contained in each criterion through mathematical models
(without decision makers intervention) (Diakoulaki et a!, 1995).

In subjective approaches, criteria weights are derived form decision makers subjective
judgment. In order to get the subjective judgments, analyst usually gives decision makers a set
of designed questions. Subjective criteria weight determination is an uneasy task. It is the
point where decision makers have to make compromise before taking final decision. It is
often time consuming, especially when there is no agreement between decision makers of the
problem under consideration. Subjective weights are generally applied in multicriteria
transportation projects evaluation.

There are many methods to derive subjective preference of decision makers regarding criteria
weights in transport projects evaluation. One of the most and widely applied method to derive
criteria weights in multicriteria analysis is Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Ramanathan,
1996). It is applied in various disciplines such as regional planning, physical planning,
politics, etc. (Saaty, 1994a and 1995).

In the AHP method, Saaty (1980) uses the principle eigenvector of positive pairwise
comparison matrix to derive criteria weights from decision makers' subjective judgment.
Interpretation of criteria weights in subjective approaches is very important. Most subjective
approaches assume that all decision makers clearly understand the interpretation of criteria
weights. This assumption is rarely happen in reality. Proper interpretation will lead to better
design of question given to decision makers in the elicitation process (Choo et al, 1999).

In AHP, decision makers are asked to compare the relative importance of two criteria. For
example, in evaluating transportation project alternatives in which the main goal is to reduce
congestion on a particular route (say route 19), the typical question would be: "Of the two
criteria, travel time and safety, which one is you consider more important, and by how many
times, with respect to alternatives to reduce congestion on route 19?". The decision makers
give their judgments based on the judgment scale shown in table 1. The judgements are then
summarised in the pairwise comparison matrix. If we call equation 4 as matrix A = then:
 a11 a12 ... 1 w11w2 ... w1Iw,,
a 21 a22 ... = w21w1 1 ...
A= (4)

.. am,, w2 1w1 ... 1

Equation 4 is a reciprocal matrix where all the elements are positive. It contains the derived
pairwise comparison, = wj/wj (w1 and wj are the relative importance of criteria i and j,
respectively), their reciprocals, = and unity as its diagonal elements aft = 1. Zahedi
(1995) described that in general all diagonal elements in square matrix A are equal to unity
and the triangle under the diagonal line are always the reciprocal of the corresponding triangle
above the diagonal line. As a consequence, the number of pairwise comparison is (n(n-1)12),
where n is the number of criteria. In other words, we do pairwise comparison only on a half of
the matrix (Saaty, 1994b). Saaty (1980) advised that the maximum number of decision
elements (e.g. criteria) to be pairwise compared should be less than or equal to nine.

Table 1 Judgment scale of relative importance for pairwise comparison

Intensity of Definition Explanation

Importance
1 Equal importance
3 Moderate importance
5 Strong importance
7 Very strong or demonstrated
importance
9 Extreme importance
2, 4, 6, 8 For interpolation between the
above values
Source: Saaty (1994b), p.26
Two activities contribute equally to the objective.
Experience and judgment slightly favour one activity over
another.
Experience and judgment strongly favour one activity over
another.
An activity is favoured very strongly over another, its
dominance demonstrated in practice.
The evidence favouring one activity over another is of the
highest possible order of affirmation.
Sometimes one needs to interpolate a compromise judgment
numerically because there is no good word to describe it.

If we multiply matrix A with vector of weights, W, (assuming that the vector of weights, W,
are known) yields in A W = n W (a system of homogenous linear equations) where w is termed
as a principal right eigenvector of A and n is therefore the eigenvalue of A:

(A nI)W = 0 (5)

or
1 w11w2 ... w1

w2 I w1 1
Aw= (6)

Wn / Wl 1

If decision makers judgments are perfectly consistent in which all pairwise comparisons are
equal to a,k = (for i,j, and k = 1, 2, 3, ..., n), then the principal right eigenvector of A is
equal to n (Saaty, 1990). However, perfectly consistent judgments (equation 6) are rarely
happen in reality, so that the eigenvalue of A equal to n is also rarely happen. As consequence,
the largest eigenvalue will be always greater than or equal to n and equation 6 is
transformed to:

(7)

The system of linear equation (equation 6) can be used to determine the relative importance
for all pairwise-compared elements. The vector of weights, is obtained from normalising
the eigenvector connected to the largest eigenvalue to sum 1. Because all columns of A
differ by a multiplicative constant, the solution of W of equation 5 is unique (Saaty, 1980;
Hwang and Yoon, 1981).

The closeness between and n can be used to measure the degree of inconsistency of the
square matrix A. The closer n the more consistent is the square matrix A. Saaty (1980)
established Consistency Index (CI) of the square matrix A. AHP is also possible to be used in
a group decision making problem. Saaty (1989) introduced a method called the geometric
mean method (GMM) to integrate different individual judgments and produce group
judgment.

There are some applications of AHP in transport evaluation. Saito (1987) used AHP to
evaluate bridge improvement programs. AHP were employed to derive numerical values to be
used in evaluation as well as to transform and aggregate different judgments of different
decision makers.

Tracz and Wawrzynkiewicz (1993) used AHP in the selection of public transport system
alternatives. Khasnabis and Chaudry (1994), based on their application of AHP to evaluate
transit privatisation projects in Detroit metropolitan are found that AHP is feasible tool for
priority ranking of transportation projects. Tabucanon and Lee (1995), in their study of
evaluation of rural highway improvement projects in Korea, concluded that the application of
AHP gave more balanced outcomes for various conflicting criteria compared to traditional
economic evaluation method.

Garcek et a!. (2004) employed AHP to evaluate three alternatives of rail transit networks in
Istanbul, AHP was found to be useful for multifaceted planning process. Although the AHP
has been found to be the best method for transportation projects evaluation, its application for
transportation projects evaluations is relatively few, especially in developing countries. The
application of AHP in developing countries in my opinion will face a problem in which
decision maker would be hard to understand the decision process, thus loss the degree of
transparency.

The Highway Development and Management manual (HDM-4), a system for road project
evaluation usually applied in developing countries, suggested applying multicriteria analysis
if non-monetary impacts such as environmental impacts will be included in the evaluation. To
avoid problems such as in France, so that there is a strong need of multicriteria analysis
procedure that can be applied in developing countries. The procedure must have both
consistency and flexibility. Consistency means that the procedure is accepted as guidance so
that can be used to reach an agreement between decision maker and flexibility means that the
procedure can follow different objectives. Otherwise the problem of wasting public fund and
irrational decision will happen. If such problem occurred in developed countries where debate
and changed ideas are common in decision making, so it could also happen in developing
countries.
4. DEVELOPMENT OF MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS METHOD FOR
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

4.1. Assumptions

Assumptions of this method are: a). All alternatives score with respect to all criteria are
known or has been estimated by the analyst. The task of decision maker is to determine
criteria weights only. b). All criteria are normalised, so that they have commensurable unit.
The following formulae, called ideal point concept (Hwang and Yoon, 1981), are typically
employed for criteria normalisation. For benefit criterion the normalised values are calculated
using the following formulae:

. (8)

and for the cost criterion the normalised values are calculated using the following formula

maxxy _xy
. (9)

where is the score of alternative i with respect to criteria j before normalisation. After
normalisation all criteria are in benefit criteria where higher is preffered.

4.2. Criteria Weights Determination

Criteria weight determination in this paper is adopted from the AHP, but the pairwise
comparison and the mathematical calculation are simplified, so that decision makers can
easily understand the process.

In simple additive weighting method (equation 1), the weight of a criterion j could be
interpreted as proportion of criterionj in 1 unit of overall value (final score of an alternative).
Thus, wj = 0.2 means proportion of criterionj in 1 unit of overall value is 20 percent.

For example, we have two criteria x andy, the scores of alternative k with respect to criterion
x and criterion y are both 1, and is 0.4 and is 0.6. Using equation 1 we will have fmal
score of alternative k = 1 ((1*0.4) + (1*0.6). We could say that in the final score of alternative
k, the proportion of criterion x is 0.4 and the proportion of criterion y is 0.6.

This interpretation might be used to design question given to decision maker and to calculate
criteria weight. The question given to decision maker would be: "If only two criteria are used,
travel time and safety, in order to value alternatives to reduce congestion on route 19, how
many percent is the proportion of safety from total score of alternatives you consider?". We
could adapt the scale judgment of table 1, so that it will be easier to interpret. Let we call the
method presented in this paper as proportion method.
 Table 2 Proportion of criterion x and y and the definition

Criterion x (%) Criterion y (%) Definition

50 50 x and y are equally importance
40 60 y is moderately more importance than x
30 70 y is strongly importance than x
20 80 y is very strongly more importance than x
10 90 y is extremely more importance than x
x-z y+z Intermediate terms

This proportion method is easier two interpret as pairwise comparison is based on common
term used by many people when stating the portion of an element composed by several
different elements, such as fifty percent, forty percent, etc. People are more likely to use the
term of fifty-fifty (which means fifty percent-fifty percent) to express their view that two
things are equally strong, equally important, or equally probable rather than other statements
such us one-one. The fifty-fifty statement can also easily be found when someone wants equal
share of something such as benefit, investment, etc. The statement such as fifty-fifty, sixty-
forty, and so on are very familiar in everyday life almost everywhere.

The proportion of all pairs are the inserted into a matrix where and 0< and its
diagonal elements are all zero. Equation 4 then become:

0 a12 ... 0 b12 ...

0 III = b21 0
(9)
...
... 0 ... 0

and

w. = k=1
(10)
(nx(n/2))(n/2)

In order to be consistent (for example when decision maker gives 60 percent for criterion x
and 40 percent for criteria y, consequently the decision maker should have > wy), the
decision maker is asked to rank the criteria first before giving proportion of each criterion in
each pair. For example we have criteria: safety, environmental, travel time, and accessibility
in a road project evaluation. Decision maker is then asked to rank the level of importance of
each criteria with respect to the objective/s. Decision maker is most likely will be able to rank
the criteria, a process called absolute measurement or rating alternatives in AHP (Saaty,
2004). But it will be hard to give specific value regarding criterion weight directly. If decision
maker rank the criteria as follow: 1) environmental, 2) safety, 3) travel time, and 4)
accessibility, and the decision maker gives proportion of each criterion in each pair
consistently, then the matrix will be:
 ____________

Table 3 Example of weight calculation

Environmental Safety Travel Time Accessibility Total Weight

Environmental 0 0.6 0.7 0.8 2.1 0.35
Safety 0.4 0 0.6 0.7 1.7 0.28
Travel Time 0.3 0.4 0 0.6 1.3 0.22
Accessibility 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.9 0.15

The above table can be read as follow: for example if only two criteria (say accessibility and
safety) are used in the evaluation and decision maker gives 70 percent for safety and 30
percent for accessibility, then we must put the proportion of accessibility in the cell where
row of accessibility cross with column of safety. The above table is 100 percent consistent
where all pair judgments in the matrix are consistent with the final weight of each criterion.
There are no contradiction between subjective judgments inserted to the matrix with the final
weights.

4.3. Comparing with AHP

If decision maker want to use AHP to calculate his/her subjective judgments, then the results
are as follow:

Table 4 Pairwise comparison matrix

Environmental Safety Travel Time Accessibility

Environmental 1 3 5 7
Safety 0.33 1 3 5
Travel Time 0.20 0.33 1 3
Accesibility 0.14 0.20 0.33 1

Total 1.68 4.53 9.33 16

Table 5 Normalised matrix and the weight using AHP

Environmental Safety Travel Time Accessibility Total Weight

Environmental 0.60 0.66 0.54 0.44 2.23 0.56
Safety 0.20 0.22 0.32 0.31 1.05 0.26
Travel Time 0.12 0.07 0.11 0.19 0.49 0.12
Accesibility 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.23 0.06

If we compare the weights in Table 3 and the weights in Table 5, it can be seen that the
weights calculated using equation 9 and equation 10 are more evenly distributed. The results
of AHP give more than 50 percent of total weight to environmental criteria. Logically if we
use fiftyfifty to express that two criteria have equal importance, then if we want to express
that one criteria is moderately more important than the other, we most likely will use a term
such as sixty-forty.
In AHP, we use one-one to express that two criteria have equal importance, but when we want
to express that one criteria is moderately important than other, we must give 3 to one criteria
and 1 to other criteria, which also mean we make a composition that proportion of one
criterion is 75 percent and the other is 25 percent, which is far from 50 percent and 50
percent.

For comparison, we recalculate the half of the matrix above diagonal line but we use the
estimated weights instead of the subjective judgments. The comparison results are shown in
Table 1, Figure 1, and Figure 2. The estimated results of the proportion method are closer to
the subjective judgments.

Table 6 Actual and estimated value of half of matrix

AHP Proportion
Ratio Actual Estimated Proportion Actual Estimated
Env/Saf 3 2.12 Env (1-San 0.6 0.55
EnvITT 5 4.58 Env (1-TT) 0.7 0.62
Env/Acc 7 9.81 Env (1-Acc) 0.8 0.70
Saf/TT 3 2.16 Saf(1-TT) 0.6 0.57
Saf/Acc 5 4.63 Saf(1-Acc) 0.7 0.65
TT/Acc 3 2.14 TT(1-Acc) 0.6 0.59

05 actual
0.4 esated
03
02 -

oa
0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 1 Actual and estimated value using proportion method

12

10

8
S actual
6
--

0
1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 2- Actual and estimated value using AIIP

4.4. Group Decision Making

In this method group decision making is also considered. In this method, the subjective
judgments are not aggregated directly, but we consider the relation of different subjective
judgments of different decision makers. We use coefficient of correlation to measure this
relation. The higher the coefficient of correlation of the subjective judgments between two
decision makers the closest is the agreement between these two decision makers. In contrast if
the correlation is negative, it measures degree of disagreement.

The coefficient of correlation is then used to determine the weight of subjective judgments of
each decision maker in determining the criteria weights in the group decision making. The
weight of the decision maker in the decision process can be determined using equation 12,
where Wd is the weight of decision maker, t is the number of decision maker, and is the
coefficient of correlation between decision maker. The exponential value is used to convert all
coefficient of correlation into positive sign.

Cd (11)

and
= Cd
Wd (12)

thecriteria weights from group decision making (wjg) can be determined using equation 14
where wjd is weight of criteriaj according to decision maker d.

Wjg (13)

For example considering four decision makers are involved in the decision process and four
criteria weights namely environmental, safety, travel time and accessibility must be assessed.
The weights assessed using the proportion method by each decision maker are as follows:

DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4

Environmental 0.35 0.29 0.32 0.18
Safety 0.28 0.25 0.3 0.32
Travel Time 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.24
0.15 0.22 0.15 0.26

We have a matrix of coefficient of correlation as follows:

DM1 DM2 DM3 DM4

DM 1 1.00 0.97 0.97 -0.38
DM2 -0.39 1.00 0.88 -0.59
DM3 0.97 -0.50 1.00 -0.16
DM4 -0.38 -0.59 -0.16 1.00
Then finally we have the weight of each decision maker as follows

Total Weight
DM 1 2.718282 2.63698 2.636904 0.684354 8.67652 0.32541
DM 2 0.67931 2.718282 2.415658 0.555244 6.368493 0.238849
DM3 2.636904 0.60816 2.718282 0.847981 6.811327 0.255457
DM 4 0.684354 0.556353 0.847981 2.718282 4.80697 0.180284

The final weights (the compromised weights) of environmental, safety, travel time, and
accessibility are 0.3, 0.29, 0.23, and 0.19 respectively.

In this method, the decision maker knows their position amongst other decision makers. So
that can reduce conflict between decision makers. The group decision making using the
method presented in this paper would ensure that the process is transparent.

Overall this method could be used as a rule in transport project evaluation in developing
countries and could ensure the consistency of the process. On the other hand, decision makers
are given full freedom to decide criteria weights using easy and transparent multicriteria
analysis method, so that the flexibility of the evaluation process to meet the objective of any
projects can be assured.

5. Conclusion

In this paper a method to determine criteria weights using multicriteria analysis is presented.
The method, called proportion method, gives more transparent results in which it is easy to
understand and could encourage involvement of any parties, affected by the project, to
participate in the decision making process. However, real application of this method is
needed, so that real problems the method may encounter are detected.

6. References

Bristow, A.L. and Nellthorp, J. (2000), Transport Project appraisal in the European Union,
Transport Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 5 1-60.

Chen, S.J. and Hwang, C.L. (1992), Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods ans
Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G. and Papayannakis, L. (1995), Determining objective weights in

multiple criteria problems; the CRITIC method, Computer Operations Research, Vol. 22, No.
7, pp. 763-770.

Gercek, H., Karpak, B. and Kilncaslan, 1. (2004), A multiple criteria approach for the
evaluation of the rail transit networks in Istanbul, Transportation, Vol. 31, pp. 203-228.

Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K. (1981), Multiple Attributes Decision Making Methods and
Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Jankowski, P. (1995), Integrating geographical information systems and multiple criteria
decision-making methods, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems, Vol.
9, No. 3, pp. 251-273.

Khasnabis, S., and Chaudry, B.B., (1994), Prioritising transit markets using Analystic
Hierarchy Process, Journal of Transportation Engineering, 120 (1), pp. 74-93.

Quinet, E. (2000), Evaluation methodologies of transportation project in France, Transport

Policy, Vol. 7, pp. 27-34.

Saaty, T.L., (1980), The analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority setting, Resource
Allocation, McGraw-Hill International Bok Company.

Saaty, T.L., (1989), Group decision making and the AHP. In the Analytic Hierarchy Process:
Applications and Studies, B.L. Golden, E.A. Wasil, and P.1. Harker (Editors), Springer-
Verlag, pp. 59-67

Saaty, T.L. (1990), How to make decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal
of Operational Research, 48, PP. 9-26.

Saaty, T.L., (1994a), Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the
Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 74, pp. 426-447.

Saaty, T.L. (1994b), How to make decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Interfaces, 24(6),
pp. 19-43.

Saito, M., (1987), Application of the Analytic Hierarchy method to setting priorities on bridge
replacement projects, Transportation Research Record, 1124, pp. 26-35.

Sayers, T.M., Jessop, A.T. and Hills, P.J. (2003), Multi-criteria evaluation of transport
options-flexible, transparent and user-friendly?, Transport Policy, Vol. 10, pp. 95-105.

Tabucanon, M.T., and Lee, H., (1995), Multiple Criteria Evaluation of Transportation System
Improvement Projects: the Case of Korea, Journal of Advanced Transportation, 29 (1), pp.
127-34.

Tsamboulas, D., Yiotis, G.S. and Panou, K.D. (1999), Use of multicriteria methods for
assessment of transport projects, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 5, pp.
407-414.

Tracz, M and Wawrzynkiewicz, B., (1993), Knowledge acquisition from multiple experts: a
case of transport planning in Poland (Chapter 14), in Expert System in Environmental
Planning, Wright, J.R., Wiggins, L.L., Jam, R.K., and Kim, T.J. (eds), Springer-Verlag,
Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 26 1-274.

Voogd, H. (1983), Multicriteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning, Pion, 207
Brondesbury Park, London.
 ANALYSIS OF TRAVEL DEMAND
IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:
A FUZZY MULTIPLE ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING
APPROACH

AMILIA ALDIAN Michael A. P. TAYLOR

PhD Research Student Professor of Transport Planning
Transport System Centre Transport System Centre
School of Geoinformatics, Planning and Building School of Geoinformatics, Planning and
University of South Australia Building
North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia University of South Australia
Fax: +61 8 8302 1880 North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
Email: Fax: +61 8 8302 1880
Email:

ABSTRACT
Travel demand analysis is crucial in transport planning process. While developed
countries have many choices of approaches in analysing or modelling travel demand
that will give the best results, most developing countries are still struggling with
elementary problems of the modelling process such as lack of professional work,
technical resources and reliable data. Aggregate models that has been criticised as
lacking of behavioural basis continue to be used in developing countries. This paper
attempts to improve the application of the aggregate model by using fuzzy multiple
attribute decision-making. The fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making method is applied
to combine the variables affecting travel decision at each step to several single
variables. The improvement integrates all the steps and could be considered to giving
behavioural basis as well. The application of this approach in modelling the Central Java
inter sub-province travel demand improves the statistical significance of the traditional
model.

1. INTRODUCTION
Travel demand analysis is crucial in transport planning process. While developed
countries have many choices of approaches in analysing or modelling travel demand
that will give the best results, most developing countries are still struggling with
elementary problems of the modelling process such as lack of technical expertise,
technical resources and reliable data. Developing travel demand models sound
theoretically strong using disaggregate approaches is then often not a priority, as they
are largely data intensive (Wirasinghe and Kumarage, 1998). The models also demand
from the analyst a high level of statistical and econometric skill for their use (Ortuzar and
Willumsen, 1994).

The models work at aggregate level is mostly developed using statistical modelling
techniques, so that it is considered as purely descriptive and have no behavioural basis.
The four-steps travel demand model in particular has significant lrawbacks, each step in
the model has its own behavioural interpretation, and the steps are typically not
integrated, for example any change of conditions of routes, modes and destinations
cannot be taken into account at trip generation step (Oppenheim, 1995).

In spite of the weaknesses, the aggregate models continue to be used in developing

countries (Wirasinghe and Kumarage, 1998). This paper attempts to improve the
application of the four steps aggregate model by using fuzzy multiple attribute decision-
making. The fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making method is applied to combine the
variables affecting travel decision at each step to several single variables. The variables
combination could integrates all the steps, so that all variables included at trip
distribution, modal split as well as route choice analysis can be taken into account at trip
generation model. The improvement is also intended to give behavioural basis and
improve the statistical significance of the model.

The next sections of this paper are organised as follow: fuzzy set theory would give
introductory concept of fuzzy numbers, fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making explains
method to combine variables, and modelling the Cental Java inter sub-province travel
demand shows application of the approach and concluding remarks highlight the
strengths and the weaknesses of the approach.

2. FUZZY SET THEORY

In the classical sets, the membership of elements in a particular set is restricted to the
binary (yes/no) definition of set membership. An element must possess the characteristic
of the set to be regarded as a member of the set, if not, then the element does not
belong to the set. The membership function of x in a set A is I if and only if x is member
of A, and 0 if and only if x is not member of A.

In reality, the bound of many sets are not precisely defined. For example if A is a set of
"about 40 km distance", then the bound of the set is unclear. Fuzzy set theory, as
introduced by Lotfi A. Zadeh (Zimmermann, 1991) is capable of handling it by allowing a
graduated definition of membership. In a fuzzy set, each element has a specified degree
of membership. A set of elements which is to be analysed by fuzzy means will have the
following definition:

xEX) (1)

A crisp set of X contain of x elements is mapped by a fuzzy set A to a membership

space M. The membership function or grade of membership of element x in fuzzy set A
is (l.LA(X)).

3. FUZZY MULTIPLE ATTRIBUTE DECISION MAKING

It is common in everyday life that people have to make a decision in selecting an option
(out of several alternatives or offer) or have to rank the alternatives based on some
criteria. The criteria (attribute) could be, cost, safety, comfort, etc. for a traveller selecting
a mode (out of several modes) to work, or could be reputation, facilities, cost, location,
etc. for a student selecting university (out of several universities) to study, and still so
many others example. The decision-making problems can happen to everyone from an
individual level to a whole nation (Chen and Hwang, 1992).

2
In the decision-making field, the kind of situations above is mostly handled using a
method termed multiple attribute decision-making. The method has been widely used
and has proven very effective in solving problems with precise data in many fields. For
example multiple attribute decision-making method has been used to rank urban
transport system projects (Gomes, 1989), and to aid environmental decision-making
(Salminen et al., 1998).

In any decision-making process, it is also common that one or more criteria or attribute
are imprecise in which those may come from unquantifiable information (e.g. safety,
comfort, etc.), incomplete information (e.g. speed, such as 'about 100 km/h", etc.),
unobtainable information (e.g. a very secret information, high cost data, etc.), and partial
ignorance (e.g. only knows part of the facts) (Chen and Hwang, 1992). Since the
application of fuzzy set theory to multicriteria analysis, it is now possible to include the
imprecise, subjective and qualitative criteria in the decision-making process. There also
have been many application of fuzzy multicriteria analysis, for instance to evaluate attack
helicopters (Cheng et al., 1999), to evaluate performance of bus companies (Yeh et al.,
2000), and to evaluate environmental impacts of road traffic (Klungboonkrong and
Taylor, 1999).

The multipla attribute decision-making problem can be expressed in a matrix format

namely decision matrix. For instance an individual H has to make a decision, then a
matrix H is formed where there must be alternatives/options A (i=1, 2, 3 m) in y axis
and criteria X1 (j=1, 2, 3,...,n) in x axis. The matrix contains values, which are the
rating of alternative A1 with respect to criteria

xl x2 ... xn
A1 x11 x12 ...
H= A2 x21 x22 ... x2fl

Am xml xm2 ... xmn

There are many methods in the multiple attribute decision-making fields in order to select
or rank the alternatives. Hwang and Yoon (1981) gave the most famous classical
method such as the dominance method, the maximin method, the maximax method, the
conjunctive method, the disjunctive method, the lexicography method, the simple
additive weighting method, ELECTRE, TOPSIS, the analytic hierarchical process (AHP)
method, the weighted product method, and the distance from target method. The
inclusion of fuzzy number to represent some or all attributes and attribute weights in the
classical method has expanded the classical methods to be fuzzy multiple attribute
decision-making (FMADM).

Before developing decision matrix, there are some steps need to be prepared before
valuing each alternative based on attributes selected (Ai), those are: determining the
attributes and fuzzy attributes (Xj), and determining attribute weights.

In term of transport, the attributes could consist of the transport system's level of service
and the socio-economic conditions of travellers as listed in the model structure above. It
is also possible that an attribute has several sub-attributes, for instance the level of
service of routes as an attribute of selecting destination usually consist of length of the
route, road geometry, etc.

3
In dealing with fuzzy attributes, there are two steps: converting linguistic terms to fuzzy
number and assigning crisp score to fuzzy number.

Eight conversion scales are provided in Chen and Hwang (1992) to convert linguistic
terms into fuzzy numbers, in which the use of each scale depend on the total number of
linguistic terms to be converted. If the decision maker is familiar with the decision
problem, they pointed that a detailed conversion is very much suggested.

The fuzzy numbers are assigned to crisp values using Chen and Hwang method (Chen
and Hwang, 1992), which is based on assumption that a crisp score of a fuzzy number
can be obtained by maximising set and minimising set technique. The
membership functions of these sets are defined as:

llmax(X) = 1 ,otherwise
(2)

0 otherwise (3)

The total score of a fuzzy number A QLT(A)) is calculated by the following formulae:

= + 1- (4)

where IIR(A), the right score, and (JSL(A), the left score are defined as

= max [mm (5)

IIL(A) = max [mm (6)

After this step, the decision-making can be performed using any of the multiple attribute
decision-making methods, as the decision matrix will contain only crisp data. A detailed
explanation of Chen and Hwang method is provided in the application of the model at
sub-section 4.3.

The attribute weight, a numerical measure to the relative importance of the criterion in
valuing a set of alternatives, is an important part of fuzzy multiple attribute decision-
making analysis. It could be calculated by several methods like entropy maximisation or
the use of pairwise comparison of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). If the decision
maker is familiar with the decision problem, then it can be given directly (Chen and
Hwang, 1992). In a case that an attribute has sub-attributes, the weight of the sub-
attributes must also be determined, so that the value of the attribute can be calculated.

I use coefficient of correlation (r) between attributes and observed travel demand divided
by total (r) as attribute weight. This is done to ensure that the total attribute weight is 1.

4
As coefficient of correlation (r) indicates the closeness of two variables, so the higher
correlation coefficient (r) the higher the weight of attribute in the decision matrix.

(7)
=

=1

To calculate the numerical values of each alternative with respect to all attributes in the
decision matrix (to combine variables affecting travel decision), I use the following
formula:

=1,2 ,m, j=1,2 n (8)

j=I

In this formula the attributes chosen in a decision matrix is first normalised by maximum
value (max of each attribute (so that they will be in a single dimension comparable
units). These values are then powered by their attribute weights. In case the attribute
has negative correlation, then it must be kept positive in calculating formula (8) but in
calculating formula (9) the result of formula (8) is transformed back to negative. For
example the r's are 0.2, 0.3 and 03, then attribute weights are 0.25, 0.375 and 0.375.

4. MODELLING THE CENTRAL JAVA INTER SUB-PROVINCE

PASSANGER TRAVEL DEMAND
4.1. TRADITIONAL TRIP GENERATION MODEL

The problems of aggregate models are not in theoretical aspects only as described in
introduction section. In many cases the applications of the four- steps model in
developing countries are also faced with condition where available variables that
intuitively affect travel decisions perform low correlations with observed travel demand
data. Sjafruddin et al. (1999) reported that they found very low coefficient of
determination when modelling regional road transport freight demand in Java Island.
This condition leads to a deficient model.

For example the application of the four-steps approach in modelling inter sub-province
passenger travel demand in Central Java (Indonesia) shows unsatisfactory results. The
coefficient of correlations between observed travel demand (trip generation per day
(TG)) and other zonal based variables (gross domestic regional product (GDRP),
population density (PD), Population (Pop), Income (Inc) and number of productive
people (age 15-64)) are very insignificant (the data are taken from the 1996 national
origin destination survey (MOCRI, 1997) and Central Java in figures 1997 (Central Java
Statistic Office, 1997).

5
 Tabel 1. Coefficient of Correlations (Trip Generation and Other Variables)

GDRP PD Population Income

t1 1 .471 .37c .23(
GDRP .47E .48k
PD .37c -.044 1 .342
Population .23C 1 -.ioc
Income .4W .754 .342 -.iOc 1

To represent all socio-economic variables and based on the coefficient of correlations

above, then trip generation model should include GDRP and PD. From regression
analysis the trip generation model (T) is given by

T = 12445.789 + 4.996(PD) + 0.0134(GDRP) (9)

Although, statistically the t-values are significant, the coefficient of determination (R2) of
0.386 is very low.

4.2. THE STRUCTURE OF THE FMADM APPROACH MODEL

The main idea of this paper is to use the first theoretical basis of decision-making
process of the second-generation models. The difference is that the decision making-
process is performed mainly by the modeller and use aggregate data.

The idea is based on assumptions that the aggregate zonal data represent
characteristics of all individuals in a particular zone, the travellers has perfect capability
to value each alternative, each alternative has attributes as well as its weights, and the
number of travellers choose an alternative is based on the total value of attributes
representing the alternative.

The problem is then how to select criteria, how to determine the attribute weights and
how to calculate the value of each alternative. This paper attempts to apply fuzzy
multiple attribute decision-making explained in the previous section to do so by
combining all attributes (variables) in all steps of traditional model.

Before valuing the alternatives, we need to determine the alternatives and their
hierarchy. In travel decision, the alternatives and the hierarchy may be as follows:
making travel or not, destinations, modes, and routes. The value of an alternative could
be an attribute of higher hierarchy of alternatives. For instance the performance of
modes serving a study area could be an attribute of destinations.

In this paper, I consider the hierarchy of the alternatives of passenger travel decision
using road transport as follow: making travel or not, destinations, routes and modes. The
reason is that it can be used to calculate the route performance with respect to all
modes. Figure 1 shows the alternatives hierarchy.

6
 Figure 1. The Hierarchy of Alternatives

Generation
(travel decision

Attribute: total
destinations value,
GDRP, population
'I! density, number of
employee etc.

Destination Choice
(destination value)
Attribute: total routes
value, number of
hotel, employment,
etc.

4p.

Route Choice (route

Route 2 Attribute: total

modes value, safety,
te I Route 1 reliability, roughness
etc.

Mode Choice (mode

Attribute: travel time,

cost, convenience,
comfort, etc.

The figure above can be explained as follow:

The value of each available mode is calculated for each available route connecting a
particular origin and a destination. The attributes could be travel time (walking time,
waiting/transfer time, in vehicle travel time), cost, convenience, comfort, etc.
The total value of all modes on a particular route must be one of attributes of each
route connecting a particular origin and a destination. The other attributes may be
safety, reliability, roughness, road geometry, etc.
The total value of all routes connecting a particular origin and a destination must be
one of attributes of each destination. The other attributes may be income,
population, number of hotel room, number of school, number of employment, etc.
The total value of all destinations available for an origin zone must be one of
attributes of travel decision of people in the origin zone. The other attributes may be
income, car ownership, population, number of employee, etc.

Given the travel decision value of each origin zone (TV), then the trip generated by a
particular zone is simply the function of the travel decision value. Meanwhile the trip
distribution, route choice and mode choice could be calculated using multinomial logit
model.

(10)

7
From the figure above it can be seen that all the steps are connected, any changes of
attributes at a step can be taken into account at other steps. For instance any damages
or improvements of road connecting an origin and a destination can be taken into
account at trip generation, which also means this structure could be used to determine
induced travel. This cannot be done by traditional four-steps model. This approach can
also take into account all modes performance as well as all routes characteristics in
travel impedance calculation.

4.3. CREATING TRAVEL IMPEDANCE DATA USING FUZZY SETS THEORY

The developed approach is applied mainly to improve the inter sub-province (kabupaten)
travel demand model in the Central Java Province presented in sub-section 4.1 above, in
which the available data are very limited and the statistical performance is very low.

Based on the data, the model structure started with travel impedance calculation in order
to determine routes value (only one route available for travelling from any origins to any
destinations (all-or-nothing assignment)), the total of routes value is then one of the
attributes of destinations value, and finally the total of destinations value is one of the
attributes of travel decisions value for trip generation model.

The travel demand data (origin-destination matrix) are in total passenger per year (not
divided by mode), meanwhile the socio-economic data are the total and aggregate of
each sub-province. The distance between cities is the only data available for travel
impedance calculation.

Based on Highway Development and Management version 4 (HDM-4) model (Bennett

and Paterson, 2000), beside the distance there is other variables considered affecting
road user cost namely road geometry and ride quality. These three variables are then
should be included in creating travel impedance data.

In this paper, the travel impedance between an origin ito a destination j is simply a
result of multiplication of distance (d11) with road geometry (rgij) and ride quality (rqjj). The
is determined using the all-or-nothing assignment method.

rgjx rqjj (11)

As there is no data on road geometry and ride quality, these data are then created using
qualitative judgment of modeller. The judgment is based on available maps and the
knowledge of modeller on conditions of the Central Java inter-city road network. The
road geometry is determined from a map showing topographic condition of the Central
Java province as well as the road network. The ride quality is determined from a map
showing roughness level, road width and road function. The fuzzy set theory is applied to
quantify these qualitative judgments.

The distance is also considered fuzzy due to following reason: most travellers would not
know the exact distance between origins and destinations and in fact each traveller
starts to travel from different points within an origin zone to different points in the
destination zone, so the fuzzy distance could represent these conditions. It also means
that the fuzzy distance can overcome the drawback of models that assume the origin
and destination of travel must be from and to a node, such as in a gravity model. The

8
use of fuzzy distance also enables the approach to take account of external trips. The
distances are converted into 11 fuzzy numbers, such as less than 40 km, about 40 km,
about 80 km, and the last one is more than 360 km.

Beside the reason of unavailable data, the qualitative judgment of the road geometry and
ride quality might also representing the reality that the travellers do not know the exact
condition of these two sub-attributes. The conversions to fuzzy numbers (qualitative
judgments) of these two sub-attributes are based on data aggregation provided by the
HDM-4 model.

The road geometry is converted to 6 fuzzy numbers namely A (straight and level), B
(mostly straight and gently undulating or bendy and generally level), C (bendy and gently
undulating), D (bendy and severely undulating), E (winding and gently undulating) and F
(winding and severely undulating). The ride quality is converted to 4 fuzzy numbers
namely good, fair, poor and bad. The membership functions of those fuzzy numbers are
shown below, in which the diagonal broken line represents the maximising set
and diagonal solid line represents minimising set The membership functions of
those fuzzy numbers are shown in figure 1, 2 and 3.

0 40 60 120 160 203 240 260 320 360 400

Distarco

Figure 1. Membership Functions of Fuzzy Numbers less than 40, about 40, about 80
and more than 360.

o 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10

Figure 2. Membership Functions of Fuzzy Numbers A, B, C, D, E and F.

9
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ride Quality

Figure 3. Membership Functions of Fuzzy Numbers good, fair, poor and bad.

Based on the formula 6, the left score (p.L(A)) is basically the intersection points between
the minimising set and left side of the fuzzy numbers. Similarly, based on the
formula 5, the right score is the intersection points between the maximising set
Q.tmax(X)) and right side of fuzzy numbers. The following tables are the total score (ji1(A))
of each fuzzy number calculated using formula 4.

Table 2. The Left Score, The Right Score and The Total Score of Fuzzy Numbers Less
Than 40, About 40, etc.

Fuzzy Number I he left score (I) rhe right score (I) he total score (I)
Less than 40 1.00 0.09 0.05
0.91 0.18 0.14
0.82 0.27 0.23
120
0.73 0.36 0.32
About 160
0.64 0.45 0.41
200
0.55 0.55 0.50

bout
bout 320
0.27 0.82 0.77
360
0.18 0.91 0.86
More than 360
0.09 1.00 0.95

Table 3. The Left Score, The Right Score and The Total Score of Fuzzy Numbers A, B,
C, D, E, and F.

Fuzzy Number I he left score (I) lie right score (I) Ihe total score (I)
A 1.00 0.17 0.08
B 0.83 0.33 0.25
c 0.50 0.42
D 0.50 0.67 0.58
E 0.33 0.83 0.75
F
Table 4. The Left Score, The Right Score and The Total Score of Fuzzy Numbers Good,
Fair, Poor, and Bad.

Fuzzy Number I he left score (I) rhe right score (I) he total score (I)
Good 1.01 0.33 0.17
Fair 0.67 0.50 0.42
Poor 0.50 0.67 0.58
Bad 0.33 1.00 0.83

The is calculated after assigning crisp score to the fuzzy numbers (defuzzification),
where it is usually done before defuzzification using fuzzy arithmetic method. This new
approach is preferred to fuzzy arithmetic following the experience of Cheng et al. (1997)
who found an interesting result from their study, that the application of fuzzy arithmetic
will cause some information loss or more fuzziness and may thus lead to mistakes in
decision-making.

4.4. THE FMADM APPROACH TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL

The travel impedance between origin destination pairs (routes value) is then one of the
attributes of destinations value, and finally the total destinations value is one of the
attributes of travel decisions value for trip generation model.

4.4.1. Calculating Destination Value

The first decision-making problem in this case is to determine the value of the preference
that travellers in a zone origin i attaches to all available destinations (destinations value).
Other attributes available for destinations value calculation are number of hotel room
(HR), number of industry (NI), number of bed in hospital (NBH), and number of market
(NM). The coefficient of correlations of those attributes as well as the route values (total
travel impedance (Cij)) of each destination with observed trip attraction data (TA) is
presented in the following table.

Table 5. Coefficient of Correlations (Trips Attraction and Other Variables)

t1 NHR No.of No.of TotalCij

market industry
1 .800 -.289 -.82
NHR .80C 1 .031 -.140
No. of market -.051 .031 1 .295 .ior
No. of industry -.2& -.14( .291 1

Total Cij .IOE .319 1

Based on table 2, the combination of attributes could be included in the decision-making

problem are total Cq and HR. total and NBH, or between total HR and NBH. As
there are 35 zones, so there are also 35 decision-making matrices must be made, in
which each matrix contains of 34 alternatives of destination zones.

A combination of attributes is taken when the fuzzy multiple attribute decision-making

gives the highest total sum of coefficient of correlation with observed travel demand. The

11
combination between total and HR is taken, in which it gives the total of 25.55 (the
average of r is 0.73 (25.55/35)).

Given the coefficient of correlations above (table 2) and formula 7, the weight of total
is 0.51 (0.83/1.63) and the weight of HR is 0.49 (0.80/1 .63). The value of the preference
that travellers in a zone origin i attaches to destination j (destination value) is given by

C..If )_O.51
HR. )O.49
DV.. = ( +( (12)
max max

and the total of destinations value (Dy1) is given by

(13)

4.4.2. Calculating Travel Decision Value (Trip Generation Model)

The second decision-making problem is in determining the power of peoples in origin

zone i to travel (travel decision value (TV1)), in which the total destination value must be
one of attributes. Based on table 1, the other attributes may be included decision matrix
are GRDP and PD. The decision matrix could contain of DV1 and GRDP, DV and PD, or
DV, GRDP and PD. The combination gives the highest correlation with trips generation
must be taken to calculate travel decision value. Those three combinations of attributes
give the coefficient of correlation as follow: 0.56, 0.52 and 0.70, so that the combination
of DV,, GRDP and PD is then taken, with the attributes weight as follow: 0.43 (0.65/1.51),
0.31(0.47/1.51), and 0.26 (0.38/1.51). The (TV1) is calculated by formula as follow:

DV1 )O.43 GDRP1 )O.31 PD1 )O.26

TV. = ( +( +( (14)
max D ri max max PD,

To ease in understanding the process of variables combination using the fuzzy multiple
attribute decision-making, the following table might help

12
 Table 5. The Calculation of Travel Decision Value

(4/M DV) (5/M GRDP) (6/M PD)

No Kabupaten DV GRDPI PD A043 A0.31 A0.26 TV (7+8+9)
1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 Cilacap 60.91 5460300.17 718 0.90 1.00 0.50 2.40
2 Banyumas 61.46 1133012.53 1041 0.91 0.61 0.54 2.06
3 Purbalingga 61.74 672547.45 964 0.91 0.52 0.53 1.96
4 Banjarnegara 63.70 902865.99 753 0.92 0.57 0.50 1.99
5 Kebumen 6088 1102241.95 888 0.90 0.60 0.52 2.03
6 Purworejo 60.54 713052.01 678 0.90 0.53 0.49 1.92
7 56.81 499167.88 695 0.88 0.47 0.49 1.84
8 Magelang 63.13 1160191.28 951 0.92 0.61 0.53 2.06
9 Boyolali 6664 1054323.63 842 0.94 0.60 0.52 2.05
10 Klaten 6545 1322775.61 1637 0.93 0.64 0.61 2.18
11 Sukoharjo 66.75 1080160.57 1519 0.94 0.60 0.60 2.14
12 Vonogiri 62.66 827986.73 533 0.91 0.55 0.46 1.93
13 Karanganyar 66.18 1268087.41 949 0.94 0.63 0.53 2.10
14 Sragen 65.84 791606.30 886 0.93 0.54 0.52 2.00
15 Grobogan 71.41 878581.41 605 0.97 0.56 0.48 2.01
16 Blora 61.84 746076.31 438 0.91 0.53 0.44 1.88
17 Rembang 66.96 568009.59 532 0.94 0.49 0.46 1.89
18 Pati 72.87 1103002.31 728 0.98 0.60 0.50 2.08
19 Kudus 7142 3788307.22 1537 0.97 0.89 0.60 2.46
20 Jepara 65.95 1014846.61 876 0.93 0.59 0.52 2.05
21 Demak 70.75 828275.74 992 0.96 0.55 0.54 2.05
22 Semarang 76.64 1001814.01 855 1.00 0.59 0.52 2.10
23 Temanggung 63.97 745383.35 728 0.92 0.53 0.50 1.95
24 Kendal 62.07 1703101.92 832 0.91 0.69 0.51 2.12
25 Batang 62.20 818413.05 774 0.91 0.55 0.51 1.97
26 Pekalongan 63.46 926733.65 859 0.92 0.57 0.52 2.01
27 Pemalang 62.72 1042708.71 1170 0.91 0.59 0.56 2.07
28 legal 65.98 978775.12 1459 0.93 0.58 0.59 2.11
29 Brebes 6503 1322522.03 986 0.93 0.64 0.54 2.11
30 Magelang city 62.86 320149.21 6749 0.92 0.41 0.87 2.20
31 Surakarta city 71.05 1314774.75 11734 0.97 0.64 1.00 2.60
32 Salatiga city 66.69 262641.29 1937 0.94 0.39 0.64 1.96
33 Semarang city 77.11 5307686.22 3610 1.00 0.99 0.74 2.74
34 Pekalongan city 64.50 453735.97 7213 0.93 0.46 0.89 2.27
35 egal cIty 65.47 358772.84 8609 0.93 0.42 0.93 2.28
Maximum Value (M) 77.11 5460300.17 11734
(between trip and
attributes) 0.65 0.47 0.38 0.70
otalr 1.51

(r/total r) 0.43 0.31 0.26

Finally using analysis of regression the trip generation model can be performed and is
given by

13
 T =29397.110+0.038(TJ')'5 (15)

The t-va/ues are significant and the R2 is 0.61. Although the R2 is still quite low, this new
approach is 1.58 times (0.61/0.386) better than the traditional model above (formula 9). If
the available data for travel decision value have better correlation with observed trip
generation data, this approach could give satisfactory results.

4.4.3. Trip Distribution

As this approach gives the trips produced by each zone and the value of all destinations
(aggregate utility), then the logit model (production constraint gravity model) can be
applied to calculate trips from ito j (T1/trips distribution).

T=Tx( ) (16)

The diversion parameter could be determined using Hyman's method (Hyman, 1969),
which is usually used for calibrating gravity model parameter. The parameter is
determined once the mean modelled trip cost (cm) is sufficiently close to mean observed
trip cost (c0). The method gives the calibration parameter (Is) of 1.092, where the
difference between the mean modelled trip cost (cm) and the mean observed trip cost
(c0) is zero.

Cm (17a)
=

c0 (17b)
=

(17c)

5. CONCLUDING REMARKS
This approach produces quite good results, where it increases the traditional model
performance in modelling trip generation 1.58 times. The application of fuzzy multiple
attribute decision-making to combine variables affecting travel decision enable to
connect the separated steps of the traditional four-steps travel demand model, so that all
variables can be taken into account in the trip generation model (elastic).

As the alternatives are chosen based on decision-making problems, then this approach
may be considered give behavioural basis to the traditional model. The use of fuzzy

14
distance especially could overcome the weakness of models that the origins and
destinations of trips are centroid of zones.

This approach could be extended to improve the structure and policy sensitivity of traffic
count based models assuming a prior OD matrix is unavailable. Overall the main
weakness of this approach is that it does not take into account aggregation biases and
ecological correlation in the model. It is as for other aggregate models, where the model
is estimated using average zonal variables.

6. REFERENCES
Ben-Akiva, M.E. and Lerman, S.R. (1985) Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and
Application to Travel Demand. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Ben-Akiva, M.E. and Bierlaire, M. [Online, accessed 25 September 2002] Discrete

Choice Methods and Their Applications to Short Term Travel Decisions, available at
URL: http://dmawww.epfl .ch/roso. mosaic/mbi/handbook-final htm..

Bennett, C.R. and Paterson, W.D.O. (2000) The Highway Development and
Management Series Volume Five: A Guide to Calibration and Adaptation, The World
Road Association (PIARC), Paris and The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Central Java Statistical Office (1997) Central Java in Figures 1997. Central Java
Statistical Office, Semarang.

Chen, S.J., and Hwang, C.L. (1992) Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making.
Lecture Notes in Econom. and Math. System 375, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Cheng, C.H., Yang, K.L., and Hwang, C.L. (1999) Evaluating attack helicopters by AHP
based linguistic variable weight, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 116,
425-435.

Easa, S.M. (1993a) Urban transportation in practice I: conventional analysis, Journal of

Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 6, 793-815.

Easa, S.M. (1993b) Urban transportation in practice II: quick response and special
topics, Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE, Vol.119, No.6,816-834.

Hwang, C.L., and Yoon, K. (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and
Applications. Springer-Verlag.

Hyman, G.M. (1969) The calibration of trip distribution models, Environment and
Planning, Vol.1, No. 3,105-112.

Gomes, L.F.A.M. (1989) Multicriteria ranking of urban transportation system alternatives,

Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol.23, No. 1,43-52.

Klungboonkrong, P. and Taylor, M.A.P. (1999) An integrated planning tool for evaluating
road environmental impacts, Journal of Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, Vol. 14, 335-345.

15
Lundqvist, L. and Mattson, L.G. (2001) National transport models: Introduction and
comparative analysis, in Lundqvist, L. and Mattson, L.G. (eds), National Transport
Model: Recent developments and Prospects. Springer, Berlin, Germany.

MOCRI (Ministry of Communication of the Republic of Indonesia) (1997) National origin

destination study. Final Report, Ministry of Communication of the Republic of Indonesia,
Jakarta.

Oppenheim. N. (1995) Urban Travel Demand Modelling: From Individual Choice to

General Equilibrium. John Wiley & Sons, USA.

Ortuzar, J de D. and Willumsen, L.G. (1994) Modelling Transport ed.). John Wiley
& Sons, England.

Quandt, R. and Baumol, W. (1966) The demand for abstract transport modes: theory
and Measurement, Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 6, No. 2, 13-26.

Reddy, K.H., and Chakroborty, P. (1998) A fuzzy inference based assignment algorithm
to estimate O-D matrix from link volume counts, Comput., Environ, and Urban
Systems, Vol. 22, No. 5, 409-423.

Ridwan, M. (2002) Fuzzy preference based traffic assignment problem. Paper accepted
for presentation in the International Workshop on Intelligent Transport System, Adelaide,
19 July 2002.

Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J., and Lahdalema, R. (1998) Comparing multicriteria methods
in the context of environmental problems, European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 104, 485-496.

Sjafruddin, A., Astuti, R.D., and Frazila, R.B. (1999) Regional freight transport demand
modelling in the Java Island, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, 303-313.

Taylor, M.A.P., Young, W. and Bonsall, P.W. (1996) Understanding Traffic System:
Data, Analysis and Presentation. Avebury Technical Books, England.

Teodorovic, D. and Vukadinovic, K. (1998) Traffic Control and Transport Planning: A

Fuzzy Sets and Neural Networks Approach. Kiuwer Academic, The Netherlands.

Triantaphyllou, E. and Lin, C.T. (1996) Development and evaluation of five fuzzy
multiattribute decision-making methods, International Journal of Approximate
Reasoning, Vol 14, 281-310.

Triantaphyllou, E., Shu, B., Sanchez, S.N. and Ray, T. (1998) Multicriteria decision
making: an operational research approach. In J.G. Webster (Ed), Encyclopedia of
Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Vol. 15, 175-186, John Wiley & Sons, New
York.

Willumsen, L.G. (1981) Simplified transport demand models based on traffic counts,
Transportation, Vol. 10, No. 3, 257-278.

16
Wirasinghe, S.C. and Kumarage, A.S. (1998) An aggregate demand model for intercity
passenger travel in Sri Lanka, Transportation, Vol. 25, 77-98.

Yeh, C.H., Deng, H., and Chang, Y.H. (2000) Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making
for performance evaluation of bus companies, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 126, 459-473.

Zeleny, M. (1982) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Zimmerman, H.J. (1991) Fuzzy Sets Theory and Its Application. Kluwer Academic,
Boston.

17
 MULTICRITERIA-NESTED MODEL TO FORECAST CLASSIFIED
TRAFFIC USING LOW COST INFORMATION

AMILIA ALDIAN Michael A. P. TAYLOR

PhD Research Student Professor of Transport Planning

Transport System Centre
School of Geoinfonnatics, Planning and Building
University of South Australia
North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
Fax: +61 8 8302 1880
Email:
Transport System Centre
School of Geoinformatics, Planning and Building
University of South Australia
North Terrace, Adelaide SA 5000, Australia
Fax: +61 8 8302 1880
Email: MAP.Taylor@UniSa.edu.au

Abstract

The new version of HDM-4 highway development and management package needs
traffic volumes of different types of vehicles (motorised and non-motorised). The
HDM-4 uses an arithmetic growth rate to estimate traffic volume, which is suitable
for short-term planning only and may be inconsistent with cost benefit analysis
applied in the system. Furthermore, a flexible travel demand model is needed to
support the application of dynamic or continuous planning process considered to be
suitable for transportation problems. For the above reasons, a traffic count based
model could be the most suitable model. On the other hand, traffic count based
models are often criticised because of a lack of behavioural basis and policy
insensitivity, so that it is possible to produce demand model that is inconsistent with
the planning purpose. This paper introduces a structured traffic count based model
that combines multiciteria analysis and the nested logit model. The combination could
give a behavioural interpretation to the model and increase its policy sensitivity,
produce a model that is consistent with the planning process and, most importantly, is
capable of forecasting classified traffic.

I. INTRODUCTION

The new version of HDM-4 highway development and management package needs
traffic volumes of different types of vehicles (motorised and non-motorised). Traffic
volume is a critical input in cost benefit analysis and in determining the rate of
pavement deterioration. The current version of HDM-4 uses an arithmetic growth rate
to estimate traffic volume (Bennet and Patterson, 2000).

The arithmetic growth model does not take into account any relations between the
road user costs (the value of money spent in road project) and traffic volume. For
instance, if the socio-economic variables that affect travel demand are constant, then
the change of travel demand is affected by road conditions only (price).

If the relation between travel demand and price is not captured in the travel demand
curve used in the benefit coat analysis, then the user revenue calculation will be
inaccurate and project budget determination will be inaccurate as well. The arithmetic
growth model may only be applied for normal traffic estimation and in the short-term,
when travellers have not realised the change in travel costs.
Furthermore, the transport system is a dynamic one, so the planning of transport
systems (including road network planning) must be able to be processed in a dynamic
way. The application of planning in a dynamic process by which transport problems
are also seen from a system perspective means that transport conditions (including its
internal and external environments) would always be a continual planning task. Care
is needed to ensure that the solutions decided and applied today will not create
another problems in the future.

A dynamic planning process must also be supported by dynamic inputs. Demand

models, as the main part of transport planning then must also be dynamic. A dynamic
demand model must be flexible and can be re-run and updated to adjust any new
conditions. Traffic count based models are considered to be suitable for a dynamic
planning process.

The main drawback of the traffic count based models is that they are policy
insensitive and lack a behavioural basis (Willumsen, 1981). They may, for instance,
produce traffic demand estimates that are inconsistent with the travel demand curve,
as they cannot take into account all of the variables considered in HDM-4.

Ortuzar and Willumsen (1991) demonstrated that a traffic count based model
combining destination and mode choice is capable of forecasting classified traffic.
Their traffic count based model was applied to update discrete choice model based on
the Stated Preference technique. The updating methods employed the theory of model
transfer over space and time. The stated preference data could provide utility values of
alternatives, so the methods could be applied to develop a hierarchical travel decision
model using the nested logit model (NL). The use of Stated Preference data also
ensured that the model was policy sensitive since it could accommodate attributes to
be considered in the planning process and also gave behavioural interpretation. The
remaining problem is that stated preference data are seldom available, as is the usual
case in developing countries.

In this paper we demonstrate a policy sensitive traffic count based model capable of
forecasting classified traffic (volume of mode m on link a) using aggregate data. The
model takes advantages of two elements, namely nested logit model and multicriteria
analysis. The nested logit model is utilised to give behavioural basis to the traffic
count based model, while the multicriteria analysis is utilised to calculate the
aggregate utility of alternatives, which can then add the policy sensitivity of the
model. The model could then be used for application with HDM-4. The next sections
review traffic count based models, explain the structure of multicnteria-nested model,
explain aggregate utility calculation using multicriteria analysis, and provide
conclusions of the paper.

II. TRAFFIC COUNT BASED MODELS

The basic idea of the traffic count based models is that the flow in a particular link is
the summation of the contributions of all trips between zones to that link. Thus
identifying the paths followed by the trips from each origin to each destination is the
most important stage for estimation of a transport demand model from traffic counts.
If is the number of trips from i to j, is the proportion of trips from zone i to
zonej travelling through link a, and Fa is the traffic flow on link a, then
 (1)

The could be obtained using various trip assignment techniques ranging from
simple all-or-nothing to more complicated techniques such as equilibrium assignment.
The all-or-nothing assignment implies that is equal 1 if the trips use link a, and
zero otherwise.

The can be determined using two basic approaches, namely structured and
unstructured methods. The application of the structured methods must assume that the
estimated matrix (travel pattern) follows an existing travel demand, for example
gravity or direct-demand model. Tamin and Willumsen (1989) compared different
models of travel demand namely gravity model (GR), intervening opportunities (OP)
and a combination of GR and OP called gravity-opportunity (GO) to develop the
structured methods.

The unstructured methods are based on a principle that the quantity of additional
information required to estimate a matrix is minimised by utilising general principles
like maximum likelihood or entropy maximisation (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994).

For the structured method, if one assumes that the travel demand in a particular area
follows a simple gravity model of trip distribution, then Fa could be defined as

SaaO.D.
Fa (2)

where and are trip generationlattraction factors like population, employment,

industrial production, etc., and denotes the distance/impedance between i and j.
Assuming that the data are all available, then the only parameter that needs to be
estimated is the coefficient a. This can be determined using least squares techniques.

Fa a0 (3)

The above equation can be extended to allow for several journey purposes or
commodity flows.

To forecast the volume of each type of vehicle on a given link, one may use a joint
distribution/modal-split model (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994) as follows:

exp(,%Cm)
= (4)
ic')
and
 (5)

where is the number of trips from i toj using mode m; F is the volume of mode
m on link a; C,' is travel cost from i toj using mode in; is the composite cost of
travelling from i toj; and A1 and are the balancing factors.

Beside the problems stated previously in the introduction, other problems of applying
the above approach are: (1) it is difficult to determine the composite cost; (2) although
it uses logit model, it does not follow the structure of hierarchical choice of random
utility theory and could turn into dot points.

III. THE STRUCTURE OF THE MULTICRITERIA-NESTED MODEL

The nested logit model (NL) is an extension of multinomial logit model (MNL)
designed to capture some correlations among alternatives. The MNL is used to deal
with a single level choice, while the NL tackles hierarchical decision-making
processes. These models are based on random utility theory for predicting the
probability that a given individual will choose an alternative within the available
choice set. This theory is based on deterministic decision rules where the utilities are
represented by random variables (see Oppenheim (1995); Ben-Akiva and Bierlaire
(2002) for details).

The application of this theory in travel demand models is claimed to give behavioural
basis to the models as they are based on an explicit principle of human behaviour.
Travel demand is then the result of a decision-making process by travellers.

There are two basic assumptions in applying the theory. The first is that travellers are
assumed to choose a given alternative (i.e. of making travel, or of a given destination,
mode, or route, or combination thereof) based on a value of preference (utility) that
the traveller attaches to that particular alternative, or combination of alternatives with
the highest utility. Second, while the traveller has a perfect capability to value the
preference, but the analyst has incomplete information, therefore uncertainty must be
taken into account. To include these two basic assumptions, the utility function
used in this model must include two parts, deterministic part and random part

= + (6)

more specifically can be defined as the utility that individual n associates with
alternative i in the choice set A linear function of the deterministic part of utility is
denoted as follows

VIfl = (7)

Where the represent alternative attributes, which contain socio-economic

characteristics and level-of-service characteristics.
There are two families of models based on the assumption of uncertainty distribution.
The first is called the logit (logistic probability unit) family. This assumes that the
error terms are independent and identically Gumbel distributed. The second is called
the probit (more properly, normit, normal probability unit) family, which assumes that
the error terms are normally distributed, which is supported by central limits theorem
from statistical analysis.

Assuming that the error terms are independent and identically Gumbel distributed,
with scale parameter then the resulting choice model is the MNL. In the NL, the
choice set is partitioned into M nests where it leads to a condition that the
utility function of each alternative must consist of a term specific to the alternative
and a term associated with the nest. Consider that i is an alternative from nest
then

= + Cjfl + + (8)

the error terms and are supposed to be independent. The utility of each nest
within the choice set is given by

1
+ln (9)
feC,,,,

Then, the probability for individual n to choose alternative i within nest is given
by

P(i, = (10)

The derivation of the MNL and the NL are well explained in many books and articles
(see for example Ben-Akiva and Lerman (1985), Oppenheim (1995), Ortuzar and
Willumsen (1994), Ben-Akiva and Bierlaire (2002)).

To forecast classified traffic using traffic data and a nested logit model we consider
that the structure of travel decision made by a traveller are as in Figure 1 where mode
choice (M) and route choice (R) are blended into a single choice. The reasons are that
the impacts of mode and road characteristics on traveller are in a single unit and the
impacts of road conditions on each type of vehicle are different, for instance a
different type of mode could experience different performance on the same route.
 Figure 1. The structure of hierarchical travel decision

The structure of the model is primarily adopted from disaggregate models, but the
deterministic part of utility function is developed at an aggregate level. As in any
aggregate models, this approach assumes that travellers in a particular zone have
similar socio economic characteristics, so that their travel behaviour are also similar
and are affected by the aggregate socio economic characteristics of the zone.

On the other hand, the choice set is also aggregated into zones, in which the zone
attractiveness is represented by aggregate socio economics characteristics of
destination zones.

Thus, the socio economics characteristics of the origin zone of travellers and the socio
economic characteristics of the choice set (destination zones) as well as transport level
of service determine travel decisions. Assuming that the socio economic
characteristics influence a travel decision linearly, then the trip from an origin zone to
a destination zone is a function of trip generation power of each zone (V1) and zone
attractiveness as well as level of service of transports serving between those
zones. The multicriteria analysis is applied to calculate V1, and

Based on the NL, the calculation of utility must be started from the lowest level of
structure. Assuming that the error terms are independent and identically Gumbel
distributed, the probability of travellers in zone i chose mode m on route r (the joint of
m and r is denoted as h) to go to destinationj is given by

exp /3h
(11)
=

then the expected received utilities (Wd) for a destination respecting the transport
level of service is given by

(12)
consequently, the probability of choosing a given destination, assuming that people of
zone i are travelling is given by

(13)

and the estimated expected received utilities of travelling from zone i is

(14)

so that the probability of people in zone I deciding to travel is

(15

If = Pi = Ph the NL becomes similar to the MNL. To have the NL internally

consistent, a condition that Ph is required (Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994).

Based on the structure above then the probability of passenger or freight trips to be
generated by zone i destined to zonej using mode m on route r is given by

=PIXP,JXPIJh (16)

Then the total of probability of volume of mode m on link a within route r is given by

Vh=m (17)
if h
=1 if link a is part of route r for trips from i toj using mode m, and 0 otherwise. If
there are strong conelations between PFam and number of modes m on link a (Ffl,
then the estimated number of mode m on link a is simply the function of

Fam*=f(PFam) (18)

The major advantage of this model structure is that it can be applied in both
uncongested and congested networks (Oppenheim, 1995).

111.1. External trips

In dealing with external trips, usually roadside interviews at the boundary of study
area are needed, or the external zone is considered as part of study area (Willumsen,
1981).
The problem of aggregate models is that trips are assumed to start and end at a single
point (centroid) in zone and travel impedance separating two zones is a crisp (i.e.
unique) value. This is unrealistic and creates difficulty in external zone determination.

Alternatively, we could use fuzzy travel impedance to separate any origin destination
pairs where travel impedance between zones are transformed into linguistic terms.
The use of fuzzy travel impedance could be more realistic as travellers do not know
exact travels impedance between zones (see Aldian and Taylor (2003) for details).

IV. MULTICRITERIA ANALYSIS

In disaggregate models, the utility of alternative can be calculated using methods such
as maximum likelihood, least square, etc. In this paper, as we assume that we only
have traffic count data and socio-economic data, then such methods cannot be
applied. We introduce the use of multicriteria analysis method in order to value the
utility of an alternative in fuzzy environment.

Multicriteria analysis is commonly used (Chen and Hwang, 1992).

The method has been widely used and has proven very effective in solving problems
with precise data in many fields. For example multicriteria analysis has been used to
rank urban transport system projects (Gomes, 1989), and to aid environmental
decision-making (Salminen et al., 1998).

The multicriteria analysis problem can be expressed in a matrix format, namely a

decision matrix. For instance an individual H has to make a decision, then a matrix H
is formed where there must be alternatives/options A1 (i=l, 2, 3,.. .,m) in y axis and
criteria (j=1, 2, 3,.. .,n) in x axis. The matrix contains values, which are the
rating of alternative A1 with respect to criteria

xl x2 ... xn
A1 x11 x12 ...
A2 x21 x22 ... X2n

Am Xml ...

There are many methods in the multicriteria analysis field in order to select or rank
the alternatives (Hwang and Yoon, 1981). Aldian and Taylor (2003) have shown that
the following method is suitable for valuing alternatives of travel decision.
)WJ)
i=1,2 ,m, j=1,2 ,n (19)
j=I

In this formula the criteria chosen in a decision matrix is first norrnalised by

maximum value (max of each attribute (so that they will be in a single dimension
comparable units and to ensure that a changes of an attribute of an alternative will not
affect other alternatives).

These values are then powered by their criteria weights. The mathematical symbol of
power will give more value to alternative having higher rating of criteria. It is
important, as the higher is the rating of the criteria the higher is the possibility that the
alternative is recognised and in turn selected by traveller, which cannot be taken into
account if we simply multiply the criteria by their weight.

The criteria weights are determined based on coefficients of correlation between

criteria and travel demand (traffic volume).

r,
(20)

Where is coefficient of correlation between travel demand and criteria j. As the

coefficient of correlation (r) indicates the closeness of two variables, so the larger the
value of the correlation coefficient (r) the higher is the weight of attribute in the
decision matrix.

IV.1. Determining the weight of the joint mode and route choice criteria, and
estimating its parameter (Ph)

In HDM-4, the main benefits of road project/programme/planning received by road

users are travel time and vehicle operating costs. Travel time (so) and travel cost (lu)
must then be the criteria of the joint mode and route choice. Generally, travel time and
travel cost affect mode and route choice for trips form origin ito destinationj
So that, we can assume that the total of mode in the whole study area (sm =
jjmr

is affected by the total travel time (tt = as well as total travel cost (tc =
i/mr

of the mode in the whole study area. We can then assume that there is
jjmr

correlation between sm and tt, and between sm and tc.

To be consistent with the benefits cost analysis applied in the HDM-4 system, the
travel time and travel cost between origin destination pairs of each mode using
different route should be calculated using the formula provided in HDM-4 manual.

The total of each mode in the study area could be determined from the volume of each
mode on several links that can represent trips between all origin destination pairs in
the study area. The links could be those that have high probability to be part of routes
used for travelling between origin destination pairs.

After the above steps, then we can develop the following table in order to determine
the coefficient of correlation.
 No Total of mode (Sm) Total travel time (tt) Total travel cost (tc)
I Sm1 U1 tc1
2 sm2 tt2 tc2

k smk ttk tCk

In order to have positive correlation and give higher value to origin destination pairs
having alternative routes then we must use the inverse of travel time and travel cost in
calculating their total. (tt = ; and tc = The wights of travel time and
Umr ijmr

travel cost can be calculated using formula (20) and the utility of each mode (Cm) can
be calculated using formula (19).

The parameter of joint mode and route choice (Ph) could be calculated using nave
method to find minimum difference between total of mode and estimated total of
mode (sm*).

exp/3h(Cmk) (21)
smk = g where g=
k

IV.2. Determining the criteria and criteria weights of travel decision and zone
attractiveness, and estimating their parameters

We consider that criteria affecting travel decision and zone attractiveness as well as
their weights are similar (like in the direct demand or simultaneous models), which
also means that Pd. To select criteria that can be included in the travel decision
and zone attractiveness value calculation, we could try those criteria one by one in
calculating V1 and as we already have Ph and able to calculate

For example, first we try population of the origin zone as the only criteria of V1 and
population of the destination zone as the only criteria of As we already have
and Ph, then we can apply the model structure to determine and Pd using the nave
method by which the model produce the highest coefficient of correlation between the
total probability of traffic volume on link a (PFa) and traffic volume on link a (Fa).
This step is done for every criterion or variable considered to affect V1 and Then,
criteria selection could be based on the coefficient of correlation. For instance a
criterion is selected if it has a correlation coefficient of 0.5 or more.

The coefficient of correlation is also used to determine criteria weights. The selected
criteria are included in the V1 and calculation using formula (19). Again, and Pd
are determined by the nave method to find the highest coefficient of correlation
between the probability of traffic volume on link a (PFa) and traffic volume on link a
(Fa).

If the use of a single criterion produces a better correlation coefficient than the use of
several criteria, then we should use that single criterion for calculating the V1 and
After this step then the structure of multicriteria-nested model can be applied to
forecast classified traffic.
V. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we have demonstrated a traffic count based model that has policy
sensitivity and a behavioural basis capable of estimating classified demand flows. The
model can be developed using low cost information, namely classified traffic volume
data, road condition and zonal based socio-economic data.

We have used the model to provide traffic data for HDM-4 applications as an
example, but basically the model could be used for any planning purpose. This model
would be more valuable for developing countries where population and land use
change rapidly, and the costs of qualified professional work, technical resources and
reliable data are high.

REFERENCE

Aldian, A. and Taylor, M.A.P. (2003) Fuzzy Multcriteria analysis for Inter-city Travel
Demand Modelling, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies (in CD).

Ben-Akiva, M.E. and Lerman, S.R. (1985) Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and
Application to Travel Demand. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Ben-Akiva, M.E. and Bierlaire, M. [Online, accessed 25 September 20021 Discrete

Choice Methods and Their Applications to Short Term Travel Decisions, available at
URL: http :I/dmawww. epfl.ch!roso .mosaic/mbilhandbook-final.htm.

Bennett, C.R. and Paterson, W.D.O. (2000) The Highway Development and
Management Series Volume Five: A Guide to Calibration and Adaptation, The
World Road Association (PIARC), Paris and The World Bank, Washington, DC.

Chen, S.J., and Hwang, C.L. (1992) Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making.
Lecture Notes in Econom. and Math. System 375, Springer-Verlag, New York.

Gomes, L.F.A.M. (1989) Multicriteria ranking of urban transportation system

alternatives, Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 23, No. 1, 43-52.

Hwang, C.L., and Yoon, K. (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods
and Applications. Springer-Verlag.

Oppenheim. N. (1995) Urban Travel Demand Modelling: From Individual Choice

to General Equilibrium. John Wiley & Sons, USA.

Ortuzar, J de D. and Willumsen, L.G. (1994) Modelling Transport ed.). John

Wiley & Sons, England.

Ortuzar, J de D. and Willumsen, L.G. (1991) Flexible long range planning using low
cost information, Transportation, Vol. 18, No. 2, 151-173.
Salminen, P., Hokkanen, J., and Lahdalema, R. (1998) Comparing multicriteria
methods in the context of environmental problems, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 104, 485-496.

Tamin, O.Z., and Willumsen, L.G. (1989) Transport demand model estimation from
traffic counts, Transportation, Vol. 16, No. 1, 3-26.

Willumsen, L.G. (1981) Simplified transport demand models based on traffic counts,
Transportation, Vol. 10, NO. 3, 257-278.
27th Australasian Transport Research Forum, Adelaide, 29 September 1 October 2004

Paper Submission Form

Paper title: Spatial structure effects on intercity freight demand in developing

countries: model and application
Author(s) name(s): Amilia Aldian and Michael A P Taylor

Organisation(s): Transport Systems Centre, School of Natural and Built Environments,

University of South Australia

Contact details: Transport Systems Centre, School of Natural and Built Environments,
University of South Australia, City East Campus

Postal address. GPO Box 4271 Adelaide, SA 5001

Telephone: +61-8-8302 1778

Facsimile: +61-8-8302 1880
email:

Abstract (200 words):

The objectives of this paper are to find methods that account for spatial structure effects using
aggregate data, and to determine the effects of spatial structure on freight demand. Spatial
structure affects travel decisions, if it is not included in the model, then it could lead to a
biased model. Spatial structure effects are usually studied using competing destinations
models, which need disaggregate data. This paper presents the adaptation of competing
destinations model together with intervening opportunities models to account for spatial
structure effects using aggregate data. The application of the model shows that competing
effects occur at origin zone, while agglomeration effects occur at destination zones.

Key words: Spatial structure, competing destinations, intervening opportunities, direct

demand model.
2 Spatial structure effects on intercity freight demand

Introduction

The objectives of this paper are to find a method to account for spatial structure effects using
aggregate data, and to examine the effects of spatial structure on freight demand.

There are three reasons behind this research. First, spatial structure effects are usually
modelled using disaggregate data, which are rarely available in developing countries. Second,
the knowledge of the effects of spatial structure on transport demand is an important input in
transport system and location planning. Third, freight demand reflects the extent of spatial
interaction between cities so that it could be used to examine spatial structural effects.

Freight demand is usually considered as a derived demand. Freight interaction between two
different spatial locations will occur when there is a demand for a commodity in one location
and an oversupply of that commodity in another location. Another important determinant for
freight demand is of course transport impedance. As intercity road networks do not usually
offer many alternative routes from one locationlcity to other locations/cities, the city position
in the road network could be a key determinant of freight demand. Applications of freight
demand models in developing countries tend to ignore this variable. Fotheringham (1983)
stated that when a spatial structure variable is not included in the model, then spatial structure
is implicitly reflected in the distance component, which is then necessarily biased.

In Indonesia and probably also in other developing countries, most cities grew along the main
road network as local road transport networks were usually not well established in the initial
urban developments. The trend is still continuing where new activity centres emerge along
main roads, although other smaller roads have been improved and some new roads have been
built. These conditions may be due to higher level of accessibility offered by main roads.

The understanding of spatial structure effects on transport could assist planners in selecting
locations of activities that have high accessibility and could minimise transport costs to all
locations in a network. On the other hand, planners also could decide to set priorities in
expanding the road network that will also produce least transport costs in the whole network.

Following this introduction, there are five other sections to the paper. Section two describes
the study area and the data, section three reviews the theories and application of spatial
structure models, section four explains the modelling framework, section five gives the
application results and section six gives conclusions.

Study area and freight demand data

Socio-economic Conditions

The study area of this research is Central Java province in Indonesia. Based on the data from
the Central Statistics Bureau of Central Java (1997, 2002), the socio-economic conditions of
the Central Java province can be summarised as follows:

1. Central Java province is one of six provinces on Java Island. The Central Java province is
divided into smaller administrative boundaries called kabupaten (sub-province) and kota
madya (municipality). There are 29 sub-provinces and 6 municipalities. Overall, the total
 A Aldian and MA P Taylor 3

area of the Central Java province is 3.25 million hectares, or around 25.04 per cent of the
total area of the Java Island, or 1.7 per cent of the total area of Indonesia.
2. Central Java province was the third most populated province in Indonesia with 31.06
million populations in 2001. The population was distributed such that the municipalities
had more population than the sub-provinces, and the capital cities of the sub-provinces
had more population than the rest of the area of the sub-provinces. The population growth
was one per cent per year based on the 1996 national socio-economic survey.
3. The economic growth, which is indicated by gross regional domestic product (GRDP),
was relatively high in 1996 (7.3 per cent). This growth declined significantly in 2001,
where it was only 3.33 per cent per year. This decline was believed to be the impact of the
economic crisis started in 1998, from which Indonesia is still struggling to recover. The
GRDP was mainly determined by manufacturing industries and agriculture sectors in both
1996 and 2001.
4. There was a gap of income between city and rural area and also between sub-provinces in
Central in 1995 (before economic crisis in 1998) the income
Java province. For instance,
per capita of the city of Semarang (the capital city of Central Java province) was
4,398,776 Indonesian Rupiahs, while the average of income per capita of other sub-
provinces was only 1,469,524 Indonesian Rupiahs.

Road Network Conditions

All capital cities of the sub-provinces are coimected within the Central Java road network.
Overall, there were 1,215 km of national roads and 2,590 km of provincial roads. The width
of arterial roads was varying from 5 m to 15 m, and the width of collector road was varying
from 4 m to 14 m. By the year 2000 only 41 per cent of all the roads were in good condition
(the Central Statistics Bureau of Central Java, 2002).

From the demand point of view, many intercity roads in the Central Java network had mixed
traffic from non-motorised vehicles to heavy trucks and buses, which could also indicate that
the roads had mixed functions from local to arterial. One output of the national origin
destination study in Indonesia in 1996 was that the percentage of local traffic on intercity
roads in Central Java province was relatively high. The percentage of motorcycle and non-
motorised vehicles from total traffic on intercity roads reached a number of 12.4 per cent and
30.8 per cent, meanwhile the share of freight transport was relatively high namely 17.1 per
cent (Ministry of Communications of Indonesia, 1997).

Freight Demand Data

The freight demand data used to calibrate the models are the result of national origin
destination survey of Indonesia undertaken by the Ministry of Communications of Indonsia
in 2001. The survey provides inter sub-provinces aggregate freight demand in tonnes/year,
where the data are not divided by commodity. The study area of this study is divided into 35
zones; so that there are 1190 inter sub-provinces freight flows (Ministry of Communications
of Indonesia, 2002).

Modelling spatial structure effects: a review

4 Spatial structure effects on intercity freight demand

The effects of spatial structure in spatial choice are commonly represented by a variable called
accessibility. Accessibility value indicates the ease (benefits or costs associated with travel) of
people or commodities to travel from specific locations to other locations. Accessibility could
also figure spatial structure and transport network characteristics. Thus, we could examine
the connection between transport network and spatial structure in order to determine the
effects of one upon the other using accessibility (Primerano, 2001).

Spatial structures effects can be examined using a disaggregate approach and an aggregate
approach. lii a disaggregate approach, several models have been applied such as logit models
(Pellegrini and Fotheringham, 2002). In an aggregate approach, researchers usually employed
gravity-type models (Guldmann, 1999).

Pellegrini and Fotheringham (2002) stated that spatial and aspatial choices differ in processing
information. The number of alternatives is commonly much larger in spatial choices, so that a
traditional multinomial logit (MNL), which requires individuals to simultaneously evaluate all
alternatives, is inappropriate. It could happen in the MINt applications that a destination with
maximum utility is not selected because it is never evaluated. Therefore, a weight of the utility
of an alternative is needed. The weight measures the probability of the alternative is actually
evaluated. The MNL model then become:

(j G) )ca
(1)
m = m
a
e G) exp(Vjkfl )c
k=1 k=l

where is the probability of individual n (from origin i) selecting destinationj, is the

utility of destination j viewed by individual n in origin i, and EG) is the likelihood that
alternativej is in individual n 'S (from i) chosen cluster G. This general model is known as the
competing destination model, where c denotes the competing measure and a is an index to
measure the level of hierarchical information processing, which needs to be estimated.
Competing effects are present if a<O, which means that alternatives in close proximity to
others are less likely to be selected. Agglomeration effects are present if a>O, when the
attraction of a cluster increases as the number of alternatives in it increases. If a=O then there
are no competing or agglomeration effects.

If we assume people use a hierarchical information processing strategy by selecting clusters

of alternatives first before selecting a destination from within a selected cluster, then potential
accessibility measures, which describe the accessibility of a destination to all other
destinations, can be used. Pellegrini and Fotheringham (2002) suggested using a Hansen type
potential accessibility:

(2)

where M is the total number of alternatives, Wk is the mass of destination zone, and djk is the
distance from j to k (all other alternatives available to person n and origin i). Large values
 A Aldian and MA P Taylor 5

mean alternatives are in close proximity and low values mean alternatives are spatially
isolated.

Guldman (1999) accounted for the effects of spatial structure on the inter-city
telecommunication flows. The effects were measured using competing destination (CD)
factors and intervening opportunities (JO) factors. JO factors are based on the idea of Stouffer
(1940) who argued "the number of persons going a given distance is directly proportional to
the number of opportunity at that distance and inversely proportional to the number of
intervening opportunities."

Guldman's (1999) model was a gravity-type model. His basic model is as follow:

(3)

where is measure of the flow from location ito locationj, is the distance from i toj,
is telephone price per unit of flow from i to j, and XO, and XDJ variables characterising the
flow-originating market at i and the flow-receiving market at j, while represents CD/JO
factors. He concluded that spatial structure has significant effects on telecommunication flow
patterns and that all destinations compete.

Framework of the model

The development of freight demand models mostly are at an aggregate level in which the
classic four-stage model is modified to suit the characteristics of freight (Ortuzar and
Willumsen, 1994). We use another kind of aggregate demand model namely the direct or
simultaneous demand model to account for the spatial structure effects on freight demand.

The direct demand models are closely related to the econometric models of demand.
The application of the models claimed to avoid some of the weaknesses of the conventional
four-step model of travel demand. The attractiveness of direct demand models is that they
calibrate simultaneously trip generation, distribution and mode choice, including attributes of
competing modes and a wide range of level of service and activity variables.

There has been an application of direct demand model for estimating regional road freight
movement in Java Island, Indonesia (Sjafrudin et al, 1999). They concluded that the
application of the model is inconclusive, where the model cannot reach best fit between
observed and estimated data.

The application of direct demand models has been mainly in the inter-urban context, with very
few applications in urban areas as these models are claimed to be useful for demand analysis
where the zones are large.

There are some models with different forms that have been applied in intercity studies (see
Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994). Another model was developed and applied by Smith (1977) to
predict rural round trips by passengers per month as a function of level of transit service and
total population able to access the service. The form of the direct demand model is essentially
linear or quasi-linear statistical regression:
6 Spatial structure effects on intercity freight demand

Tijmr (4)

where aymr and are parameters to be calibrated. The X"ijlnr represent various attributes of
demand zones, destination, modes and routes (Oppenheim, 1996). The direct demand model
is also one of gravity-type models. An example of common form of the model is like the one
developed by Krafi (in Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994) as follows:

Tijk =
(J.J.)13k2 1_J{(m)aklfl (5)

where P is population, I is income, t and c are travel time and cost of travel between i andj by
mode k, and 0, /3, and a are parameters to calibrate. The problem with this form is that as long
as travel costs from i to j are equal to travel costs from j to i, then should be equal to
which rarely happens with real data. To overcome this limitation, Wirasinghe and Kumarage
(1998) put restrictions on their model so that the model is for one direction only where

Another method to overcome that limitation is by reforming the model structure into the
following form (Manheim, as cited in Ortuzar and Willumsen, 1994):

pJ3kl )akm
Tijk = (6)

The problem with equation 6 is that P, I,, and must all be statistically significant. If that
condition cannot be fulfilled, then it is possible to have only P, and 1., or and I, in the
equation.

In the disaggregate approach explained in the previous section, spatial structure effects are
included by giving weights to the utility of alternatives. In this paper we try to apply the
concepts of disaggregate approach using aggregate data. As a utility value is not available in
the aggregate approach, the weight is then attached to variables considered to affect freight
demand.

The concepts of competing destinations and intervening opportunities are also applied by
using an accessibility measure. The variables of destination zones are weighted using a
competing destination factor and the variables of origin zones are weighted using an
intervening opportunities factor.

In this paper the competing destinations factor (Ci) is defined as total distance from other
destinations to destination j, and intervening opportunities factor (0,) is defined as total
distance from other destinations (exceptj) to origin i.

; (7)

and
 A Aldian and MA P Taylor 7

(8)
k

Figure 1 and figure 2 illustrate the basic idea of the competing destination model and the
intervening opportunities model applied in this paper.

I
I
I
I
k I
I

I I

Figure 1 Competing destination model

I I

I I
I I

I I
I 1' I

I I

I I

I I

I I

Figure 2 Intervening opportunities model

By weighting variables with C3 and 0,, then is not equal to as the variables
characterising a zone will have different values depending on its position, whether as origin or
destination. This approach then reduces the limitation of equation 5. Equation 5 then become:

Tijk ((JQ.)(J.C.))13k2 (9)

m

The distance exponents and Z) may be determined by trial and error process to find the
best fit of the model.
8 Spatial structure effects on intercity freight demand

For both origin and destination zones, competing effects are present if 2,>O and For
origin zones, competing effects mean that origin zones in close proximity to others tend to
generate fewer trips. For destination zones, competing effects mean that alternatives in close
proximity to others tend to attract fewer trips.

For both origin and destination zones, agglomeration effects are present if and For
origin zones, agglomeration effects mean that origin zones in close proximity to others tend to
generate more trips. For destination zones, agglomeration effects mean that alternatives in
close proximity to others tend to attract more trips. If Z=O and 2=0 then there are no
competing or agglomeration effects.

Empirical analysis results

Equation 9 is a model form that accounts for the effects of spatial structure on travel demand.
As well as the distances between cities, the available socio economic variables considered to
affect freight demand are population, number of households, gross regional domestic product
(GRDP), GRDP of agricultural sector, GRDP of manufacturing industries, and GRDP of trade
activities.

We first develop a model without incorporating the competing destination factor and the
intervening opportunities factor = 0 and = 0) as a comparative benchmark. In order to
have a model in which all variables are significant, the backward elimination technique is
applied (Taylor et a!, 1996). The following are the name of variables: DIS for distance, GDP
for GRDP product, POP for population product, HOU for household product, AGR for GRDP
of agricultural sector product, ND for GRDP of manufacturing industries product, and TRA
for GRDP of trading activities product.

The benchmark model is as follow denotes freight demand from i toj in tonnes/year):

LnT.. = 4.723 1.27 1LnDIS +0.7O5LnGDP+0.356LnHOU O.266LnAGR (10)

(2.115) (15.640) (7.844) (2.031) (3.389)

Although all t values (in parentheses) are significant, the R2 of 0.3 07 for this model is quite
low. It might due to the data quality where of the 1190 origin destination pairs, there are 329
origin and destination pairs that have no freight flows at all, i.e. the freight demand is 0.

This might also be due to aggregation bias as freight demand data are aggregated without
specifying commodity groups. According to Nam (1997), the freight transport is highly
diverse, which affects the choice of mode and also destination. As each commodity could
have different characteristics so that each commodity should have different form of model.

Another likely factor responsible for the poor performance of equation 10 is that travel
impedance needs to be defmed more precisely using detailed forms such as generalised cost
instead of using travel distance.

The trial and error process step in finding the distance exponents (2j and values and most
importantly the spatial structure effects on freight demand is done by combining values from
 A Aldian and MA P Taylor 9

1 to 1 for both competing destination factor and intervening opportunities factor. The results
are summarised in table 1.

Table 1: The summary of simulation results (t values are in parentheses)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Variables 2,-1,
A.1=O A=-1
Constant 1.259 9.476 4.814 -14.098 -4.846 -16.77 -5.721 2.149
(0.825) (11.637) (3.575) (-4.226) (-2.048) (-4.483) (-2.694) (1.191)
LnDIS -1.246 -1.222 -1.241 -1.307 -1.280 -1.298 -1.269 -1.248
(-15.432) (-14.997) (-15.128) (-15.940) (-15.548) (-16.060) (-15.788) (15.077)
LnGDP 0.717 0.756 0.734 0.690 0.758 1.115 0.718 0.675
(7.990) (11.216) (10.894) (7.647) (11.173) (4.690) (8.063) (10.275)
LnPOP

LnHOU 0.362 0.509 0.423

(2.095) (2.853) (2.452)
LnAGR -0.246 -0.104 -0.127 -0.317 -0.166 -0.379 -0.307 -0.161
(-3.179) (-2.221) (-2.761) (-3.911) (-3.788) (-4.547) (-3.911) J-3.546)
Ln1ND

LnTRA -0.325
(-1.836)
R2 0.312 0.294 0.288 0.305 0.293 0.320 0.321 0.279

The main conclusion from Table 1 is that spatial structure affects freight demand in the study
area. This conclusion is supported by the improvement made by model 1, model 6, and model
7 compared to the benchmark model (equation 10).

Model 1 shows that agglomeration effects are present in the destination zones as and the
absence of intervening opportunities factor improves the benchmark model by 0.05 per cent.
On the other hand, model 6 shows that competing effects are present in origin zones as
and the absence of competing destination factors improves the benchmark model by 1.3 per
cent.

Model 1 explains that a zone located in close proximity to others tends to attract more freight
demand. While, model 6 explains that a zone located in close proximity to others tends to
produce fewer freight demand. The best model is achieved when competing destination factor
of 1 and intervening opportunities of 1 are given (model 7), it improves the benchmark
model by 1.4 per cent.

The result of model 1, model 6, and model 7 might prove that the effects of intervening
opportunities factors are stronger than competing destinations factor. An attempt is made to
strengthen this conclusion by increasing the value and

An increase in 4, does not gain much improvement, while an increase in does. This clearly
supports the conclusion that the effects of intervening opportunities factors are stronger than
competing destinations factor. These results are shown in Table 2.
10 Spatial structure effects on intercity freight demand

Table 2: The summary of simulation results (t values are in parentheses)

Model 9 Model 10 Model 11

Variables
2,=-J,

Constant 3.682 -0.249 -9.382

(2.930) (-0.152) (-3.714)
LnDIS -1.241 -1.253 -1.281
(-15.400) (-15.512) (-15.883)
LnGDP 0.809 0.784 0.707
(12.231) (12.155) (7.934)
LnPOP

LnHOU 0.3 54
(2.09 1)
LnAGR -0.144 -0.183 -0.328
(-3.302) (-4.305) (-4.121)
LnIND

LnTRA

R7 0.311 0.310 0.318

GRDP of the agriculture sector appears in all models with negative sign. This might be
because the agricultural products are consumed locally, or transported to external zones,
which are not taken into account in this study. In fact, producers in Central Java fill some
needs for agricultural products in the major cities in Java Island such as Jakarta.

Overall, the method presented in this paper is valid for use in accounting for spatial structural
effects on freight demand and also on any spatial interactions with the use of aggregate data.

Conclusion

The effects of spatial structure on freight demand has been analysed using a modified
competing destinations model and intervening opportunities. The modification is made to suit
those models with aggregate data. The modification gives a valid result, and can be used to
account for spatial structural effects on spatial interactions.

The application of the modified model has improved the performance of the traditional direct
demand model both practically and theoretically. This is demonstrated by the improvement
made by the modified models compared to the traditional model. The results indicate that
agglomeration effects are present in destination zones and competing effects are present in the
origin zones.
 A Aldian and MA P Taylor 11

We still need further research to validate this model by applying to other types of spatial
interactions such as intercity passenger travel and by taking into account all variables
representing impedance such as travel time, travel costs, mode reliability, etc. Another
important research to improve the model presented in this paper is by incorporating different
accessibility measures.

References

Central Java Statistical Office (1997) Central Java in Figures 1997 Semarang: Central Java
Statistical Office

Central Java Statistical Office (2002) Central Java in Figures 2002 Semarang: Central Java
Statistical Office

Fotheringham, A 5 (1983) A new set of spatial interaction models: The theory of competing
destinations Environment and Planning A 15, 15-36

Guldman, J M (1999) Competing destinations and intervening opportunities interaction

models of inter-city telecommunication flows Papers in regional science 78, 179-194

Ministry of Communication of (1997) National origin destination study (Final Report)

Jakarta: Ministry of Communication of Indonesia

Ministry of Communication of Indonesia (2002) National origin destination study (Final

Report) Jakarta: Ministry of Communication of Indonesia

Nam, K C (1997) A study on the estimation and aggregation of disaggregate models of mode
choice for freight transport Transportation research E 33 (3), 223-231

Ortuzar, J D and Willumsen, L G (1994) Modelling Transport ed) England: John Wiley
& Sons

Pellegrini, P A and Fotheringham, A 5 (2002) Modelling spatial choice: a review and

synthesis in a migration context Progress in human geography 26 (4), 487-510

Primerano, F (2001) Understanding Accessibility, paper of 23rd Conference of the Australian

Institutes of Transport Research 23 Melbourne: Institute of Transport Studies, Monash
University

Sjafruddin, A, Astuti, R D and Frazila, R B (1999) Regional freight transport demand

modelling in the Java Island Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 3
(3), 303-3 13

Smith, R L (1977) Evaluation of rural public transportation demand models that include level
of service measures Transportation Research Record 638, 49-51

Stouffer, S A (1940) Intervening opportunities: A theory relating mobility and distance

American Sociological Review 5, 845-867
12 Spatial structure effects on intercity freight demand

Taylor, M A P. Young, W and Bonsai!, P W (1996) Understanding Traffic System: Data,

Analysis and Presentation England: Avebury Technical Books

Wirasinghe, S C and Kumarage, A S (1998) An aggregate demand model for intercity

passenger travel in Sri Lanka Transportation 25, 77-98