2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2018.02.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A multi-criteria approach for prioritizing advanced public transport modes (APTM) considering urban types in Korea

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0
3

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
18
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Characteristics of the advanced public transport modes (APTM) and existing options for the transport modes, [7] A28 G N A P e t a l .…”
Section: Application Of the Multi-criterial Analysis And Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Characteristics of the advanced public transport modes (APTM) and existing options for the transport modes, [7] A28 G N A P e t a l .…”
Section: Application Of the Multi-criterial Analysis And Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This statement was also confirmed by results of research realised in the Slovak Republic. In addition, thanks to studying different towns, especially in South Korea, a multi-criterial analysis was worked out, which also considers deploying the advanced public transport modes (APTM) with respect to building the new types of towns, [7]. Figure 8 implies that the pedestrian traffic is only counted with for the distance of up to 1 km; in the case of the bike transport, it is something more than 2 km.…”
Section: Selected Experience From Creating Transport Operation Plans mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Also, (Aydin et al, 2015) identified welcoming as one of the most important attributes in evaluating customer satisfaction in rail transit service. (Redman et al, 2013), (Jain et al, 2014), (Keyvan-Ekbatani & Vaziri, 2012), (Güner, 2018), (Boujelbene & Derbel, 2015), (Barbosa et al, 2017), (Celik et al, 2013), (Calvo & Ferrer, 2018), (Nguyen-Phuoc, Su, Tran, Le, & Johnson, 2020), (Pedroso, Bermann, & Sanches-Pereira, 2018), (Camargo Pérez, Carrillo, & Montoya-Torres, 2014), (Eboli & Mazzulla, 2011), (Nassereddine & Eskandari, 2017), (J. de Oña, de Oña, & López, 2016), (Aydin et al, 2015), (Carreira et al, 2013) Comfort (Chou et al, 2014), (R. De Oña et al, 2014), (Zhang et al, 2019), (dell'Olio et al, 2011, (Nathanail, 2008), (Schiefelbusch, 2015), (Keyvan-Ekbatani & Vaziri, 2012), (Lee, 2018), (Pedroso et al, 2018), (Eboli & Mazzulla, 2015), (Mahmoud & Hine, 2016), (Barbosa et al, 2017), (Celik et al 2013), (Güner, 2018), (Redman et al, 2013), (Eboli & Mazzulla, 2011), (J. de Oña et al, 2016, (Aydin et al, 2015), (Sam et al 2018), (Carreira et al, 2013) Frequency (Redman et al, 2013), (Jain et al, 2014),…”
Section: Welcomingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Scenarios of pedestrian transport in Ramallah were prioritized according to 13 criteria using group decision making with stakeholders and the AHP method [130]. The AHP method was also used to prioritize the provision of advanced public transport mode choice in Korean cities [131]. Prioritization of light rail options in Belgium, [130], also used the AHP method with 13 criteria in four main groups (land use, social, environmental and economic).…”
Section: Focus On Transport Modementioning
confidence: 99%