Persian
Language
Geographical Research is Published in Persian Fulltext.
Volume 36, Issue 2 (2021)
GeoRes 2021, 36(2): 161-171 |
Back to browse issues page
Article Type:
Subject:
History
Received: 2020/12/14 | Accepted: 2021/01/14 | Published: 2021/06/16
Received: 2020/12/14 | Accepted: 2021/01/14 | Published: 2021/06/16
How to cite this article
Akbari M. Transportation Indicators Assessment in Iran's Metropolises. GeoRes 2021; 36 (2) :161-171
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1048-en.html
URL: http://georesearch.ir/article-1-1048-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Authors
M. Akbari *
Department of Geography and Urban Planning, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Yasuj University, Yasuj, Iran
Abstract (6697 Views)
Aims: talking about economic and social development, it is essential to mention transportation. The current study is carried out to assess the transportation indicators in Iran's metropolises.
Methodology: The needed data for Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Shiraz, Qom, Kermanshah, and Hamedan (formal metropolises) and Rasht, Zahedan, and Kerman (informal metropolises) for this qualitative study is collected from Tehran statistics in 2018. The studied indicators are the number of working buses, working gas-fueled buses, private-sector buses, bus lines, bus stops, roofed bus stops, predicted train lanes, operated train stations and lanes, parking lots, vertical parking, overpass bridges, mechanized overpass bridges, crosses with traffic lights, gas stations, pedestrian underpass, and multilevel interchanges. The analysis of the transportation indicators was done using the EDAS multi-criteria decision-making technique.
Findings: EDAS score for transportation indicators in Tehran metropolis is 1.000 which is the highest score among the studied metropolises. Mashhad (with 0.549), Isfahan (with 0.508), and Shiraz (0.456) are the next ranks, respectively. According to the scores of the EDAS, other metropolises are in poor condition.
Conclusion: Iran's metropolises except for Tehran are not in good condition in terms of their transportation indicators.
Methodology: The needed data for Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan, Shiraz, Qom, Kermanshah, and Hamedan (formal metropolises) and Rasht, Zahedan, and Kerman (informal metropolises) for this qualitative study is collected from Tehran statistics in 2018. The studied indicators are the number of working buses, working gas-fueled buses, private-sector buses, bus lines, bus stops, roofed bus stops, predicted train lanes, operated train stations and lanes, parking lots, vertical parking, overpass bridges, mechanized overpass bridges, crosses with traffic lights, gas stations, pedestrian underpass, and multilevel interchanges. The analysis of the transportation indicators was done using the EDAS multi-criteria decision-making technique.
Findings: EDAS score for transportation indicators in Tehran metropolis is 1.000 which is the highest score among the studied metropolises. Mashhad (with 0.549), Isfahan (with 0.508), and Shiraz (0.456) are the next ranks, respectively. According to the scores of the EDAS, other metropolises are in poor condition.
Conclusion: Iran's metropolises except for Tehran are not in good condition in terms of their transportation indicators.
Keywords:
English Expanded Abstract [HTML 13 KB] (50 Download)
References
1. Aljoufie M, Zuidgeest M, Brussel M, Van Maarseveen M (2011). Urban growth and transport: Understanding the spatial temporal relationship. Urban Transport. 116:315-328. [Link] [DOI:10.2495/UT110271]
2. Badassa BB, Sun B, Qiao L (2020). Sustainable transport infrastructure and economic returns: A Bibliometric and Visualization analysis. Sustainability. 12(5):1-24. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su12052033]
3. Bamwesigye D, Hlavackova P (2019). Analysis of sustainable transport for smart cities. Sustainability. 11(7):1-20. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/su11072140]
4. Baum-Snow N (2007). Did highways cause suburbanization? The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 122(2):775-805. [Link] [DOI:10.1162/qjec.122.2.775]
5. Bertolini L (2012). Integrating mobility and urban development agendas: A manifesto. DisP-The Planning Review. 48(1):16-26. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/02513625.2012.702956]
6. Cooke S, Behrens R (2017). Correlation or cause? The limitations of population density as an indicator for public transport viability in the context of a rapidly growing developing city. Transportation Research Procedia. 25:3003-3016. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.229]
7. Costa Á, Fernandes R (2012). Urban public transport in Europe: Technology diffusion and market organization. Transportation Research Part A. 46(2):269-284. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.tra.2011.09.002]
8. Dingil AE, Schweizer J, Rupi F, Stasiskiene Z (2018). Transport indicator analysis and comparison of 151 urban areas, based on open source data. European Transport Research Review. 10(58):1-9. [Link] [DOI:10.1186/s12544-018-0334-4]
9. Griškevičiūtė-Gečienė A, Griškevičienė D (2016). The influence of transport infrastructure development on sustainable living environment in Lithuania. Procedia Engineering. 134:215-223. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.proeng.2016.01.062]
10. Harriet T, Poku K, Kwabena Emmanuel A (2013). An assessment of traffic congestion and its effect on productivity in urban Ghana. International Journal of Business and Social Science. 4(3):225-234. [Link]
11. Hajduk S (2016). Assessment of urban transport - A comparative analysis of selected cities by taxonomic methods. Economics and Management. 8(4):67-74. [Link] [DOI:10.1515/emj-2016-0034]
12. Vernon Henderson J (2010). Cities and development. Journal of Regional Science. 50(1):515-540. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9787.2009.00636.x]
13. Hidalgo D, Huizenga C (2013). Implementation of sustainable urban transport in Latin America. Research in Transportation Economics. 40 (1):66-77. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.retrec.2012.06.034]
14. Keshavarz Ghorabaee M, Zavadskas EK, Olfat L, Turskis Z (2015). Multi-Criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average Solution (EDAS). Informatica. 26(3):435-451. [Link] [DOI:10.15388/Informatica.2015.57]
15. Lu I J, Lewis C, Lin SJ (2009). The forecast of motor vehicle, energy demand and CO2 emission from Taiwan, road transportation Sector. Energy Policy. 37(8):2952-2961. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.enpol.2009.03.039]
16. Miller H, Witlox F, Tribby C (2013). Developing context-sensitive livability indicators for transportation planning: A measurement framework. Journal of Transport Geography. 26:51-64. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.08.007]
17. Tehran Statistical Yearbook (2019). Publications of the Tehran municipality information and communication organization. 1st ed. Tehran. [Persian] [Link]
18. Thynell M, Mohan D, Tiwari G (2010). Sustainable transport and the modernisation of urban transport in Delhi and Stockholm. Cities. 27(6):421-429. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.cities.2010.04.002]
19. Velazquez L, Munguia N, Will M, Zavala A, Verdugo SP, Delakowitz B, Giannetti B (2015). Sustainable transportation strategies for decoupling road vehicle transport and carbon dioxide emissions. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal. 26(3):373-388. [Link] [DOI:10.1108/MEQ-07-2014-0120]
20. Yu Nannan, De Jong M, Storm S, Mi Jianing (2012). Transport infrastructure, spatial clusters and Regional economic growth in China. Transport Reviews. 32(1):3-28. [Link] [DOI:10.1080/01441647.2011.603104]