1613

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES IN TRANSPORTATION

PLANNING USING MULTI-STAKEHOLDERS MULTI-OBJECTIVES
AHP MODELING
Mongkut PIANTANAKULCHAI
Lecturer
School of Building Facilities and Civil
Engineering, Sirindhorn International
Institute of Technology
Thammasat University
Rangsit Campus, Pathumthani, Thailand
Fax: +66-2-986-9009 ext.1905
E-mail: mongkut@siit.tu.ac.th
Nattapon SAENGKHAO
Graduate Student
School of Building Facilities and Civil
Engineering, Sirindhorn International
Institute of Technology
Thammasat University
Rangsit Campus, Pathumthani, Thailand
Fax: +66-2-986-9009 ext.1900
E-mail: nattapons@siit.tu.ac.th

Abstract: Transportation planning involves many stakeholders and objectives which are
commonly conflicted. This study applied Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to transport
decision making. Related social interest groups were modeled in the decision process to
reflect social preference. Relative importance of each attribute in AHP was modeled by
combining engineering model with decision model. A case study of alternative motorway
alignments in Thailand was conducted. Impacts were estimated by the aid of Geographical
Information System (GIS) and AHP model developed. Composite weighted AHP scored were
used to generate AHP decision surface. Finally, the best alignment was proposed by
generating a least cost path which is most socially preferable.

Keywords: AHP, GIS, Transportation Planning, Highway Route Planning

1. INTRODUCTION

Transport decision making usually involves many social interest groups and objectives which
are commonly conflicted. In conflicted situations, to achieve final solution which most
socially preferable, trade-offs among interests groups and objectives are common in practice.
Importance of each objective is not directly comparable, for example, accessibility and
mobility, etc. Some studies applied decision support system in transportation planning, for
example, Sikder and Yasmin (1997), Tsamboulas and Panou (2001). Nowadays, the research
on the development of a Decision Support System (DSS) is directed at integrating technical
knowledge in specific area with computer technologies for solving problems which neither
man nor computer alone can address effectively.

Geographic Information System (GIS) has been used to develop natural and cultural resource
inventory, to identify contamination sources, to assess environmental constraints, and to
evaluate proposed highway alignment alternatives. GIS provides an ideal atmosphere for
professionals to analyze data, to apply models, and to make better decisions. The high quality
map products created with GIS enhance the quality of public presentations and reports (Wang
et al., 1995). Integrating DSS on GIS is a challenging task, especially in a multi-disciplinary
field such as transportation planning. Reviews of applications of GIS in transportation
planning are numerous, to name a few, Gallimore (1992), Vonderohe et al. (1993),
Panchanathan and Faghri (1994), Sutton (1996), Thong et al. (1997), Li et al. (1999), Verma
and Dhingra (2001). In Thailand, to our knowledge, the number of applications of AHP and

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1614

GIS in transportation planning is still limited. This study presented integration of AHP on GIS
and applied the developed model to select the suitable alignment of the motorway in Thailand.

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: MULTI-STAKEHOLDERS MULTI-

OBJECTIVES AHP ON GIS

2.1 Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The pairwise comparison method was developed in 1980 by Saaty in the context of the
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The AHP is a mathematical method used to determine
the priorities of different decision alternatives via pair wise comparisons of decision elements
with respect to a common criterion. The pairwise comparison approach coupled with a ratio
scaling method has been used to uncover the relative importance among all decision criteria in
multiattribute decision-making environments. The AHP is becoming more popular over other
methods employed in the decision-making process, because of its simplicity, promising
accuracy, theoretical robustness, ability to handle both intangible and tangible criteria, and
importantly, its capacity to directly measure the inconsistency of the respondent’s judgments.
Based on advantages mentioned above, AHP was applied in this study. As stated by Saaty
(1995), the AHP is based on four principles as follows.

2.1.1 Decomposition

A complex problem is decomposed into levels consisting of a few manageable elements; each
element is also, in turn, decomposed hierarchically in lower decision levels. The global
objective is placed at the top of the hierarchical structure. The lower level of the hierarchy
structure consists of more detailed elements of the predecessor level. Typically, the
alternatives are contained in the lowest level of the hierarchy. Figure 1 shows an example of
hierarchy decomposition in transportation decision making.

2.1.2 Prioritization

The impact of the elements of the hierarchy is assessed through paired comparisons done
separately in reference to the element of the level immediately above. The AHP carries out
comparisons of the elements involved in a decision in an appropriate manner to derive their
scales of priorities. Although paired comparisons are a simple concept (essential for the
participation of nontechnically trained experts), the way they are used in the AHP is novel and
unique. Only homogeneous elements are compared. Clustering is needed to group and
compare such elements including a common element from one cluster to an adjacent cluster.
No numbers are assigned to them; rather, the smaller or lesser element with respect to a
property is used as the unit and the larger one is estimated as a multiple of it. In that case the
smaller one is assigned the reciprocal value when compared with the larger. From the
comparisons, priorities for the elements belonging to a ratio scale are derived in the form of
the principal eigenvector of a positive reciprocal matrix.

To make the pairwise comparison judgments the fundamental scale of the AHP of absolute
values 1 to 9 and their reciprocals given in Table 1 below is used. The numbers used
correspond to strength of preference of one element over another. Ideally, verbal judgments

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1615

are used rather than numerical values when the pairwise comparison process has to do with
“intangibles”. If numerical judgments are used, the assessment is how many times one is
judged preferable to the other. In this process data itself is assessed according to importance
and is seldom used literally as it is.

Transportation
Improvement

User Community Government

Transportation Economic and Social Impact Environmental

Impact Financial Impact Impact
Economic Development

Community severance
Return on Investment

Structures Relocation

Energy Consumption
Visual Intrusion

Noise Impact
Air Pollution
Accessibility
Travel Time

Project Cost
Travel Cost

Vibration
Safety

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3

Figure 1. Hierarchy Decomposition in Decision Making in Transportation Planning

Let there be n criteria and their actual relative priorities are w1, w2 ,…, wn. Further, let A be an
n × n matrix of pairwise comparison, whose elements are assigned from Table 1. These
elements, aij may be regarded as an estimate of the ratio wi /wj.

 w1 / w1 w1 / w2 L w1 / wn 
w / w w2 / w2 L w2 / wn 
A =  2 1  (1)
 M M M 
 
 wn / w1 wn / w2 L wn / wn 

The input data can be achieved from individual interviews of several experts. Several sets of
pairwise comparison matrices of elements in the same level which attribute to accomplishing
the goals of the parent element in the next higher level are finally obtained as shown in Eq.
(1). For each expert, the derived pairwise comparisons of relative importance, aij = wi /wj, for

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1616

all decision elements and their reciprocal, aji = 1/ aij, are inserted into a reciprocal square
matrix A = {aij} as shown in Eq. (1).

Table 1: Scales of Pairwise Comparisons

Intensity of
Definition Explanation
Importance
1 Equal Importance Two criteria contribute equally to the objective
Moderate Importance Experience and judgment slightly favor one
3
of one over another criterion over another
Essential or Strong Experience and judgment strongly favor one
5
Importance criterion over another
Very Strong or
A criterion is favored very strongly over
7 demonstrated
another; its dominance demonstrated in practice
Importance
The evidence favoring one criterion over
9 Extreme Importance another is of the highest possible order of
affirmation
Intermediate values between the adjacent scale values (when
2, 4, 6, 8
compromise is needed
If criteria i has one of the above numbers assigned to it when compared
Reciprocals
with criteria j, then j has the reciprocal value when compared with i
Source: Adapted from Saaty (1980)

The analytical solution of Eq. (2) then provides the relative weights for each decision element.
According to the eigenvalue method, the normalized right eigenvector (W = {w1, w2 ,…, wn}T)
associated with the largest eigenvalue (λmax) of the square matrix A provides the weighting
values for all decision elements. The largest eigenvalue (λmax) can be computed by using Eq.
(3)

AW = λmaxW (2)

n  n  
λ max = ∑  ∑ a ij  × wi  (3)
 j =1 
i =1  

CI = (λmax − n ) / (n − 1) (4)

A Consistency Index (CI), as illustrated in Eq. (4), is used to measure the degree of
inconsistency in the square matrix A. Saaty (1980) compared the estimated CI with the same
index derived from a randomly generated square matrix, called the Random Consistency
Index (RCI) as shown in Table 2. The value of RCI for n less than three is zero and they are
not shown in the table.

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1617

Table 2: The Random Consistency Index (RCI)

n 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

RCI 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.51 1.48 1.56 1.57 1.59
Source: Adapted from Saaty (1980), pp. 21.

The ratio of CI to RCI for the same order matrix is called the Consistency Ratio (CR). The
judgmental consistency of each expert will be determined. Generally , a CR of 0.10 or less
(for n ≥ 5); 0.09 or less (for n = 4); 0.05 or less (for n = 3), is considered acceptable.
Otherwise the relative importance for each objectives will be revised to improve the
judgmental consistency.

In group decision making, if the individuals differ in their judgments, they are allowed to
make a case for themselves by either reaching consensus or by the following whatever ground
rules there are for reaching a single judgment, such as a majority vote. Individuals have been
known to change their position. In some cases a whole group changed their position after
listening to reasons given by one member.

In this study, method of achieving the group’s judgment proposed by Saaty (1989) was
applied by using the Geometric Mean Method (GMM) as shown in Eq. (5). This method can
be used to aggregate different judgments from several experts. It should be noted that only
consistent expert judgments would be included in this step.
1/ H
 H 
ij (
a = a × a × ... × a × ... × a
gp 1
ij
2
ij =  ∏ aijh 
h
ij ij )
H 1/ H
(5)
 h =1 
where, aijh = (wi / wj) is an element of the square matrix of a decision maker h; aijgp is the
geometric mean of the paired comparisons conducted by each expert; and H is the total
number of human experts. The Group Consistency Index (GCI) was defined as;

GCI = (λmax – n)/n (6)

The group consistency ratio (GCR) is calculated in the identical way as the typical CR value
(GCR = GCI/RCI). The group judgment is considered consistent if the GCR is less than 0.10.

2.1.3 Synthesis

The priorities are pulled together through the hierarchic composition to provide the overall
assessment of the available alternatives.

2.2 Spatial Impact Modeling in GIS

To model impacts from transportation system on GIS it is necessary to combine Engineering

Model and Weight Decision Model. Engineering model is a mathematical model that relates
physical quantity regarding the impact being considered (such as emission concentration or
noise level) in space. On the other hand weight decision model relates physical quantity in

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1618

engineering model with social preference. An impact to community depends on many factors
such as amount and concentration of pollution, land use type and activity, time and duration
of impact, unique preference of interest group etc. Engineering model alone could not
represent social impact without weight decision model. For example, significant amount of
carbon monoxide emission may develop greater impact in urban areas, where population
density is higher, than in rural areas.

Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM) problem could be classified into two broad
categories (Hwang et al., 1981)
• Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM), with discrete, usually limited number
of prespecified alternatives, requiring inter and intra-attribute comparisons, involving
implicit or explicit tradeoffs.
• Multiple Objective Decision Making (MODM), with decision variable values to be
determined in a continuous or integer domain, of infinite or large number of choices, to
best satisfy the decision maker constraints, preferences or priorities.

In the context of highway route alignment planning, MADM is the process to choose the best
route among definite number of predetermined alternative routes. On the other hand, MODM
is the process to identify the best route from infinite number of feasible routes. The analysis
by MADM is as straightforward as conducting impact assessment of each alternative and then
to select the most preferable alternative. In contrast, the analysis by MODM is not as
straightforward as the analysis by MADM due to infinite number of feasible solutions. Most
impacts could not be partially identified if the project is not wholly constructed.

In the following sections we shall describe some concepts of spatial MODM on GIS.

2.2.1 Land Use Factor

Land use factor is applied to represent relative impact on of specific impact type on specific
land use. Land use factor land use type i and impact type j could be calculated by normalizing
standard level of impact type i on land use type j with average level of impact type i on every
type of land use considered.

X ij  X ij 
Lij = =   (7)
 n   X ij 

 ∑ X ij 
 i =1 
 n 
 
 

Lij = Land use factor of land use type i and impact type j
Xij = Level of tolerable impact type i on land use type j

2.2.2 Impact Response Function

To be able to compare the severity of the impact of specific type with impacts of other types
the impact is needed normalized with threshold impact level. Therefore, it would be the
dimensionless index that represents relative level of impact compared with threshold impact.

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1619

In fact, threshold impact selected could be any reference level of impact. In this study we
selected threshold values based on national environmental standards (maximum tolerable
level). Selecting environmental standards as a threshold benefits in twofold by providing
additional information regarding impact level with national standards.

Impact response function depends on type of impact. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the
correct impact response function for specific types of impact. This could be done by
considering related environmental quality standards. However, in this study we simply
applied linear impact response function.
 X 
Impact Level = f   (8)
 X0 

X 0 = f (Land use type ) (9)

X = Physical quantity of impact

X0 = Standard threshold value (such as environmental standard)

Figure 2 shows some theoretical impact response functions.

 X 
Impact = f  
 X0 

Max.
2

1
1 Linear
2 Marginally decreasing
3 Marginally increasing
4
4 Logistic
3
 X 
 
0 1.0  X0 
Figure 2. Impact Response Functional Forms

2.2.3 Noise Impact Modeling

Impact from traffic noise was modeled depends on noise level and land use type. Noise
impact is reflected by noise energy intensity developed. Noise energy intensity developed
varied inversely with distance from noise’s source. Land use also plays important role in
assessing the impact, for example, impact of highway noise in residential area is considered
more significant than impact in commercial or industrial areas.

D 
N i = N 0 − α log i  (10)
 D0 

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1620

Ni = Noise level to community i if a highway would be constructed on cell x (dBA)

N0 = Noise level at standard distance from the centerline of highway (dBA)
Di = Distance of cell x to community (m)
D0 = Standard distance (15 m) from centerline of highway
α = Parameter reflecting type of ground and obstruction from roadside
= 10 for no roadside obstruction or acoustically hard ground
= 15 for roadside obstruction or acoustically soft ground covered with vegetation

Total weighted noise impact to neighboring communities could be represented by

  Pi  N i  
    
n
  P  N 0  
N (X ) = ∑  (11)
i =1  Li ,noise 
 
 

N(X) = Potential of noise impact to communities

Pi = Population within community i
P = Mean population
Li,noise = Land use factor related to noise impact of community i

2.2.4 Air Pollution Impact Modeling

Impact of air pollution could be estimated as following. In theory, the engineering model of
air pollution impact could be formulated with Gaussian Air Dispersion Model as describe
below.

For stationary point source;

q( x, y, z ) =
Q   y 2 ( z − H ) 
2

exp − −  (12)
2πσ y σ z u   2σ y 2σ z 

For line source such as highway;

2 Q − z 2 
q( x, y, z ) = exp  2  (13)
π uσ z  2σ z 

q = Concentration of pollutant (kg/m3)

Q = Rate of emission (kg/sec)
x = Distance in the direction of wind (m)
y = Lateral distance from wind direction (m)
z = Height above ground level (m)
H = Height of source release (m)
u = Mean wind speed in x-direction (m/sec)
σy, σz = Standard deviation of dispersion in y-direction and z-direction
σ y , σ z = Function of meteorological condition and distance from source (x), (See Colls,
1997)

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1621

Total weighted air pollution impact to neighboring communities could be represented by

  Pi  qi  
    
n
  P  q 0  
E( X ) = ∑   (14)
i =1  Li , air 
 
 
E(X) = Potential of air pollution impact to communities
qi = Concentration of pollutant experienced by community i if a highway would be
constructed on cell x
q0 = Standard level of concentration for community i
Li,air = Land use factor related to air pollution impact of community i

2.2.5 Structures Relocation

Impact of structures relocation if a highway would be constructed on cell x, S(x), could be

modeled by

∞ if cell x contains nonmoveable herritages , etc.


S (x) = 1 if cell x contains moveable herritages , houses , etc. (15)
0 if cell x contains general area.


2.2.6 Visual Intrusion

Constructed highway may cause adverse impact to the esthetic of existing community’s
landmark. Impact from visual intrusion if a highway would be constructed on cell x, V(x),
could be modeled by

 X 
V( x ) = 1 −   (16)
 X threshold 

X = Distance from existing landmark (m)

Xthreshold = Maximum distance affecting visibility of existing landmark (m)

2.2.7 Community Severance

A newly constructed highway may create difficulty of connecting among neighboring

communities. Impact from community severance if a highway would be constructed on cell x,
S(x), could be modeled by

s severance score depending on current activity level of cell x

S (x) =  (17)
0 if no severaces exist

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1622

2.2.8 Accessibility

If the level of accessibility to a transport system could be represented by number of citizens

willing to use the system, total weighted difficulty of access by communities offered by a
transport system could be represented by
1
A( x ) = n (18)
∑ Pi ∗ d i(
c
)
i =1

A(x) = Difficulty of access by community i if a highway would be located on cell x

Pi = Number of population in community i
di = Distance from community i to highway located on cell x
c = Calibrated parameter reflecting the willingness to use highway by distance from resident

2.2.9 Other impacts

Other impacts such as economic development, project cost, and return on investment, etc. are
not easily modeled in the fashion presented in previous sections since they could be estimated
only when an alternative is already selected. However, normally these impacts are not highly
sensitive with alternative routes. Therefore they are not considered in the process of selecting
the best route by MODM.

3. CASE STUDY: INTERCITY MOTORWAY PLANNING IN THAILAND

3.1 General

The proposed Ban Pong-Kanchanaburi intercity motorway project (BKM) was selected as a
case study. BKM connects Kanchanaburi province with Ratburi province in the western
region of Thailand. The study area covers about 3,200 km2 and the approximate length of
proposed motorway is about 40 km. The land use is generally agricultural with scattering
urban and buildup land. Figure 3-4 show general information of the study area.

Figure 3. Study Area

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1623

Figure 4. Land Use of Study Area

3.2 Results

The spatial information in GIS was integrated with the result of objective weights from AHP
model developed by questionnaire survey. The objective weights on various impacts are
shown in Figure 5 and the followings could be concluded;

Among three interest groups (user, government, and community), we can observe that the
most important group is the government with about 44% of weight. Users and community
possess approximately equal relative important with the weight of about 28%. However, from
this figure, we can see that the role of non-government groups (56%) is more significant when
compare to the government. This agrees with the recent situation in Thailand and many
countries which non-government group becomes more significant in almost all projects of the
country. When compare among five major impacts, transportation impact is the most
important with the weight of about 40% and out of this 40%, travel time is the most
significant (about 30%) when compare to other criteria based on transportation impact. Return
on investment is the most important criterion based on economic and financial impacts with
the weight of about 50%. Structure relocation is the most important criterion to be concerned
in the transportation improvement project based on social impact. It has the weight of about
47%. Energy consumption and air pollution are the two most important criteria based on
environmental impact with the weight of about 36% and 31%, respectively.

The numerical values on the right end of Figure 5 express the overall weight of each criterion
(safety, accessibility, travel time and etc.) and the summation of these weights are equal to
1.00. These values were calculated by multiplying the weights corresponding to each criterion.
For example, the overall weight for travel time of 0.122 was from 0.404 x 0.301. All of these

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1624

weights were then integrated with the spatial information in GIS to obtain the AHP decision
surface.

Energy Consumption 0.073

0.357
Vibration 0.028
0.139
Environmental Impact
Noise Impact 0.040
0.197
0.204 Air Pollution 0.063
Government 0.307
0.441 Structures Relocation Alt.1 0.074
0.468
Social Impact
Visual Intrusion 0.033
0.209
Transportation System
0.158 Community severance Alt.2 0.051
Improvement
Commmunity 0.323
0.276 Economic Development 0.062
Economic and Financial 0.264
Impact Project cost Alt.3 0.055
0.235 0.233
Return on investment 0.118
User 0.503
0.283 Safety Alt.4 0.111
Transportation Impact
0.274
Accessibility . 0.076
0.404 0.188 .
Travel Cost . 0.096
0.237
Travel Time 0.122
0.301

Figure 5. Result of Objective Weights Related to Transport Decision

Figure 6-9 show some selected potential maps of impacts if a motorway would be constructed
in the area.

Figure 6. Potential Impact from Accessibility to Communities

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1625

Figure 7. Potential Impact from Air Pollution to Communities

Figure 8 Potential Noise Impact to Communities

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1626

Figure 9 Potential Impact of Structure Relocation

Figure 10 shows the aggregated map layers (e.g. , Figures 6-9 ) weighted by corresponding
objective weights (Figure 5) and the shortest route generated on weighted AHP decision
surface.

Figure 10 The Best Route Generated on Weighted AHP Decision Surface

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1627

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

We applied AHP to transport decision making process. Related social interest groups are
modeled in the decision process to reflect social preference. Relative importance of each
attribute in AHP is modeled by combining engineering model with decision model. A case
study of alternative motorway alignments in Thailand was conducted. Impacts were estimated
by the aid of Geographical Information System (GIS) and AHP model developed. Composite
weighted AHP scored were used to generate AHP decision surface. Finally, the best
alignment was proposed by generating a least cost path which is most socially preferable.

Main contributions of this research:

1. This study considered not only environmental effects but also included economic,
financial, and social aspects.
2. Not only opinions from experts were considered but stakeholders (such as users, local
residents, government, etc.) were also considered in the decision process. Impacts to
stakeholders were modeled to determine the pressure in social interest groups.
3. Relative importance of each attribute was modeled by combining engineering model
with decision model.
4. Each objective could be represented by attributes which are either quantifiable or
unquantifiable. In this study, the relative importance of quantifiable attributes such as
the amount and concentration of air pollution, noise level, congestion, etc, were
modeled using their relative level to standards such as environmental standards, etc.
For the relative importance of unquantifiable attributes such as aesthetics, heritages,
AHP was applied.

Recommendations for further studies are

1. This study applied maximum total social benefits as a decision rule. However,
applying different decision criteria (for example, social equity) may result in different
solution.
2. The characteristic of response function of various impacts should be further studied.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to express profound gratitude to the Department of Environmental
Quality Promotion (DEQP) and the Department of Highway (DOH) for providing useful
information for this research.

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003
 1628

REFERENCES

Colls, J. (1997) Air Pollution: An Introduction. E&FN SPON, London.

Gallimore, W.P., Hartgen, D.T., and Li, Y. (1992) Applications of Geographic Information
SystemTransport Analysis Packages in Superregional Transportation Modeling.
Transportation Research Record 1364, 122-130.

Li, X., Wang, W., Li, F., and Deng, X. (1999) GIS Based Map Overlay Method for
Comprehensive Assessment of Road Environmental Impact. Transportation Research Part
D, Vol. 4, 147-158.
Panchanathan, S., and Faghri, A. (1994) Knowledge-Based Geographic Information System
for Safety Analysis at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings. Transportation Research Record
1497, 91-100.

Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York

Saaty, T.L. (1989) Group Decision making and the AHP. In B. L. Golden, E.A. Wasil, & P.T
Harker (Eds.), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies. Springer, Berlin

Saaty, T.L., (1995) Transport Planning with Multiple Criteria: The Analytic Hierarchy
Process Applications and Progress Review. Journal of Advanced Transportation. Vol.29,
No.1, 81-126.

Sikder, I.U. and Yasmin N. (1997) Spatial Decision Support System for Location Planning.
Proc. of Geo-Information for Sustainable Land Management (SLM), Enschede,
Netherlands.

Sutton, J.C. (1996) Role of Geographic Information Systems in Regional Transportation

Planning. Transportation Research Record 1518, 25-31

Thong, C.M., and Wong, W.G. (1997) Using GIS to Design a Traffic Information Database
for Urban Transport Planning. Computer, Environment, and Urban Systems. Vol. 21, No.
6, 425-443

Tsamboulas, D.A. and Panou, K.D. (2001) Decision Support System for the Assessment of
Transport Corridor Developments in Accession Countries to the European Union. Proc. of 9th
World Conference on Transport Research, Seoul, Korea.

Verma, A. and Dhingra, S. L. (2001) Study of GIS Applications to Transportation: A

Comprehensive Review. Proc. of 9th World Conference on Transport Research, Seoul,
Korea.

Vonderohe, A.P., Travis, L., Smith, R.L., and Tsai, V. (1993) Adaptation of Geographic
Information Systems for Transportation, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report 359, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

Wang, X., and Stauffer B. (1995). Application of GIS for Environmental Impact Analysis in a
Traffic Relief Study. Computer, Environment, and Urban Systems. Vol. 19, No. 4, 275-
286

Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol.4, October, 2003