Abstract

The aim of this study is to compare the conventional and modern public transport systems for urban areas. Conventional public transport systems have been implemented in many metropolises and the cities with substantially large population but there are remarkable complications and disadvantages related to such systems which lead to lower level of efficiency and eventually lower capability to attract the citizens. Modern world can offer an advanced technology based public transport system which can be competitive with conventional systems. Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is a public transport system which could be among the several systems proposed for a particular urban area in planning and decision making process. An analytical tool is required to compare the characteristics of the conventional systems and the modern system in order to make the most suitable decision in selection of a public transport system for the area under consideration. A model considering social, technical and economical aspects of public transport based on Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method is given that describes the necessary factors which must be checked and considered in planning process of public transport in highly populated cities.

Keywords:

AHP, PRT, urban public transport,

References

1. Anderson, J.E., 1996. Some Lessons from the History of Personal Rapid Transit (PRT). Paper was Presented at a Conference on PRT and Other Emerging Transit Systems. Minneapolis, MN.
   
2. Anderson, J.E., 2005. The future of high capacity PRT. Proceeding of Advanced Automated Transit Systems (AATS) European Conference. Bologna, Italy, pp: 7-8.
   
3. Anderson, J.E., 2007. High-capacity personal rapid transit: Rationale, attributes, status, economics, benefits. PRT International, LLC Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
   
4. Irving, J.H., H. Bernstein, C.L. Olson and J. Buyan, 1978. Fundamentals of Personal Rapid Transit. Lexington Books, Lexington, MA, ISBN: 0-669-02520-8.
   
5. Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process, Planning, Priority, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York.
   

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests.

Open Access Policy

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Copyright

The authors have no competing interests.