EVALUATION OF COMMUTER METHODS FOR THE UN][MAS CAMPUS USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

EVALUATION

OF COMMUTER METHODS FOR THE UN][MAS

CAMPUS USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY

PROCESS

Goh Weiyang

HE 148 G614

2009

Bachelor of Engineering with Honours

(Mechanical and Manufacturing System Engineering)

2009

UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAWAK

BORANG PENGESAHAN STATUS TESIS

Judul: EVALUATION OF COMMUTER METHODS FOR THE UNIMAS CAMPUS USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

SESI PENGAJIAN: 2008R009

Saya GOH WEIYANG (HURUF BESAR)

mengaku membenarkan tesis" ini disimpan di Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak dengan syarat-syarat kegunaan seperti berikut:

1. _{Tesis adalah hakmilik Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.}

2. _{Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak dibenarkan membuat salinan untuk} tujuan pengajian sahaja.

3. _{Membuat pendigitan untuk membangunkan Pangkalan Data Kandungan Tempatan.}

4. Pusat Khidmat Maklumat Akademik, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak dibenarkan membuat salinan tesis ini sebagai bahan pertukaran antara institusi pengajian tinggi.

5. _{** Sila tandakan ( 11 ) di kotak yang berkenaan}

a _{SULIT (Mengandungi maklumat yang berdarjah keselamatan atau kepentingan} Malaysia seperti yang termaktub di dalam AKTA RAHSIA RASMI 1972). TERHAD (Mengandungi makiumat TERHAD yang telah ditentukan oleh organisasi/

badan di mana penyelidikan dijalankan).

0

oleh /I uI ll Alamat tetap: .

188, LORONG 5, KAMPUNG BOYAN 34000 TAIPING

PERAK.

TIDAK TERHAD

(TANDATA'N PENULTS) (TAI) ATANGAN PENYELIA)

A

PN. ERVINA JUNAIDI Nama Penyelia

/ ý/0 1

Tarikh: (9ý5/Ol Tarikh: / oý / CATATAN A iA

Tesis dimaksudkan sebagai tesis bagi Ijazah Doktor Falsafah, Saijana dan Sarjana Muda.

Jika tesis ini SULIT atau TERHAD, sila lampirkan surat daripada pihak berkuasa/organisasi berkenaan dengan menyatakan sekali sebab dan tempoh tesis ini perlu dikelaskan sebagai

Approval

Page

The project report attached hereto, entitled "Evaluation

of Commuter

Methods

for the Unimas

Campus

Using

the Analytic

Hierarchy

Process", which was prepared and submitted by Goh Weiyang in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering with

Honors (Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering) was hereby, read and

approved by:

I 11c

101

PN EIWINA JUNAIDI

Date

Project Supervisor

Faculty of Engineering

Pusat

aSARAWAK

EVALUATION

_{OF COMMUTER METHODS FOR THE UNIMAS CAMPUS}

USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

GOH WEIYANG

Thesis Submitted to

the Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering

With Honors (Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering)

2009

Dedicated to my family, friends and a greener future for our planet.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to express his gratitude and appreciation to a few

individuals without whom the completion of this thesis would not have been

possible.

First and foremost, special mention is reserved for the project supervisor, Pn Ervina Junaidi, for all the assistance and support that she has afforded the

author towards his research and completion of his thesis. Her kind guidance and supervision went a long way in aiding and motivating the author to produce the best of his work.

Special thanks are also reserved for the project co-supervisor, En Nazeri

Abdul Rahman, for his untiring effort in guiding and enlightening the author on

research methodologies and the use of Multiple Attribute Decision Making tools.

The author also wishes to express his sincere gratitude to En Hj

Mohammad Zaky Gardafi b. Ibrahim and the cooperation of his Transport Unit

in supplying the statistics and information vital to this research.

Last but not least, the author wishes to thank all Unimas community

members who participated in his research, as well as his friends, coursemates

and family who have been instrumental in lifting spirits during moments of

difficulty and demotivation.

Abstrak

Dengan pelancaran Kampus Barat Unimas pada tahun 2006, jumlah

pelajar dan staf telah meningkat dan pola ini dijangka berterusan untuk tahun- tahun yang akan datang. Peningkatan populasi di kampus yang sebegini besar

secara langsung membawa cabaran dari segi pengangkutan dan logistik. Walaupun _{sebuah sistem komuter} dalam bentuk rangkaian bas telah pun diwujudkan, _{ianya mempunyai reputasi sebagai system yang tidak boleh} diharap dan tidak memenuhi keperluan komuter. Situasi sebegini mewajibkan

sama ada penaiktarafan atau penggantian sistem bas yang sedia ada demi menyediakan komuniti kampus dengan sebuah kaedah pengangkutan yang boleh diharap. Pelaksanaan kaedah _pengangkutan ini juga berpotensi

mengalakkan pengurangan penggunaan pengangkutan peribadi, sekaligus mengelakkan masalah seperti kesesakan trafik dan pencemaran pada masa akan datang. Justeru, kajian ini merupakan sebuah penilaian berstruktur yang bertujuan _{untuk mengatasi cabaran-cabaran} ini _{sambil mengambil} kira keperluan _pelajar dan pihak pengurusan _universiti. Kaji _{selidik akan} dijalankan untuk mengenalpasti keperluan-keperluan ini dan penilaian kaedah- kaedah pengangkutan akan dijalankan dengan menggunakan `alat pelaksanaan

pilihan' untuk mengintegrasikan seboleh yang mungkin, keperluan-keperluan ini ke dalam kaedah penyelesaian yang akan dipilih. Kaedah ini kemudiannya

akan dibentangkan dalam bentuk panduan melaksanakan sistem komuter di Unimas.

Abstract

With the opening of Unimas' new West Campus in 2006, student and staff

numbers have increased and this trend is expected to continue in the coming years. An increase in population within such a large campus naturally brings with it transportation and logistical challenges. Although a commuter system in the form of a bus network is already in place, it has the reputation of being

unreliable and its fulfillment of commuter needs is often the subject of much debate. This _{situation necessitates either} the drastic improvement _or

replacement of the current bus system to provide the community with a better, more reliable mode of transport which will potentially initiate a shift away from personal transport, hence avoiding undesirable situations such as traffic congestion and pollution in the future. This study will therefore focus on conducting a structured evaluation of potential options to resolve this challenge based on demands of the community and university management. Surveys will be used to identify and clarify the needs that a commuter system has to fulfill in Unimas and evaluation of these options will then be carried out via a decision-

making tool in an attempt to integrate the various criteria as much as possible into the selected solution. This solution will then be presented in a manner that

will hopefully serve as a rough guide on the feasibility in implementing such a commuter system within Unimas.

Pusat Kbidwat Makluiaat AKademtlc UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA SARAWAK

Table of Contents

Title Page

Dedication

Acknowledgement

Abstrak

Abstract

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

Nomenclature

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background

1.1.1 Unimas History 1.1.2 Student Population 1.1.3 The New Campus

1.2

Research Problems

1.2.1 Personal Transportation 1.2.2 Bus Commuter System

1.2.3 Human-powered Transport 1.3 Objectives Page i ii iii iv V vi

xi

xv

xvii

1

2

2

4 5

5

7

8

10

V1

Chapter 2

LITERATURE

REVIEW

2.1 Commuter Systems 11

2.1.1 Rapid Transit _- 11

2.1.1.1 Ridership 12

2.1.1.2 Implementation Cost 13

2.1.1.3 Operational and Maintenance 15 Cost

2.1.2 Light Rail 16

2.1.2.1 Ridership 16

2.1.2.2 Implementation Cost ₁₇

2.1.2.3 Operational and Maintenance 18 Cost

2.1.3 Monorail 18

2.1.3.1 Ridership ₁₉

2.1.3.2 Implementation Cost ₂₀

2.1.3.3 Operational and Maintenance 21 Cost

2.2 Design Criteria ₂₁

2.2.1 Rapid Transit Criteria ₂₃

2.2.2 Light Rail Criteria ₂₅

2.2.3 Monorail Criteria ₂₇

2.3 Safety ₂₉

2.4 Decision Making ₂₉

2.4.1 _{New Approach to Transportation 30}

Appraisal

2.4.2 Analytic Hierarchy Process

₃₂

2.4.3 Cost-benefit Analysis 33

Chapter 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 35 3.2 Information Gathering 37 3.2.1 Qualitative Survey ₃₇ 3.2.2 Quantitative Survey ₃₈ 3.2.3 Gathering of Statistics ₃₉ 3.3 Analysis 39

3.3.1 Management and Commuter Criteria ₄₀

3.3.2 Cost Demands ₄₀

3.3.3 _{Design and Implementation Criteria 40}

3.4

Decision Making

₄₁

Chapter 4

RESULTS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Commuter Surveys ₄₄

4.1.1 General ₄₄

4.1.2 Current Transportation Modes ₄₅

4.1.3 Opinions on the Bus System ₄₇

4.1.4 _{Willingness to Shift Modes 48}

4.1.4.1 Potential Commuter Shift ₅₁

4.1.5 Commuter Criteria ₅₂

4.1.6 Summary of Findings ₅₆

4.2 The Bus Commuter System 4.2.1 Composition

4.2.2 Maintenance and Life Cycle

57

58

58

4.2.3 Routes and Schedules

59

4.2.4 Costs

60

4.2.4.1 Fuel Costs 60 4.2.4.2 Vehicle Procurement 62 4.2.5 Summary of Findings 62 4.3 Ridership Numbers 63 4.4 Criteria 65 4.5 Weighing 66

4.6 Commuter System Characteristics 68

4.7 AHP Groundwork 68

4.7.1 AHP Diagram 69

4.7.2 AHP Criteria Weighing 70

4.8 AHP Calculations 72 4.8.1 Implementation Cost 4.8.2 Operational Cost 4.8.3 Maintenance Cost 4.8.4 Space 4.8.5 Noise 4.8.6 Punctuality

72

75

75

76

76

77

4.8.7 Capacity

₇₇

4.8.8 Safety

₇₈

4.8.9 Final Weighing

₇₉

4.9 The Proposed System ₈₅

4.9.1 Weather and Safety ₈₅

4.9.2 Routes and Space Availability ₈₆

4.9.3 Costs ₈₉

4.10 Concept Line CBA 91

Chapter 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction 96 5.2 Conclusions 97 5.3 Recommendations 98 5.4 Summary 100

Bibliography

101

Appendix 110

List of Tables

Table

Page

1.1

Student and Staff Population from 1992 to 2020

3

1.2

Selected Locations and their Distances from Allamanda

6

College

2.1

Ridership numbers for a few regional rapid transit

13

systems

2.2

Cost comparison for a few selected RT systems

15

2.3

O&M cost comparisons for a few selected RT systems

15

2.4

Ridership numbers for a few selected Light Rail Systems

17

in the USA

2.5

Cost comparison numbers for a few selected Light Rail

17

Systems in the USA

2.6

O&M cost comparisons for a few selected RT systems

18

2.7 Ridership numbers for a few regional Monorail systems 20

2.8 Cost estimate of two monorail systems in the region 20

2.9 O&M _{cost comparisons} for a few selected Monorail 21

systems

2.10 Design criteria for a streetcar system

26

2.11 Design Specifications for Scomi Rail Bhd's Monorail

28

2.12 2007 safety statistics for the three commuter methods in

29

the United States

4.1 Community opinions on the Unimas bus commuter system 47

4.2

Willingness of the Unimas community to shift modes to an

49

effective commuter system

4.3

Potential reduction in vehicle numbers with shift in

52

commuting methods

4.4

Routes, stops and frequencies of the bus commuter system

59

in Unimas

4.5 Findings on the Unimas bus commuter system

xii

4.6

Current and projected ridership numbers for the Unimas

64

community in 2009 and 2020

4.7

Weights assigned to the main criteria by the university

67

management and students for AHP analysis

4.8 Weights assigned to the sub-criteria for AHP analysis 67

4.9 Comparison of commuter systems according to criteria 68 identified in this research

4.10 Explanation of the scale used in the AHP calculations 72

4.11 Pairwise comparison for implementation cost 72

4.12 Comparison matrix for implementation cost 73

4.13 Comparison matrix for operational cost 75

4.14 Comparison matrix for maintenance cost 75

4.15 Comparison matrix for space 76

4.16 Comparison matrix for noise 76

4.17 Comparison matrix for punctuality 77

4.18 Comparison matrix for capacity 77

4.19 Comparison matrix for safety 78

4.20 Combination _{of Level II-II criteria weights with various} 82 fractions of decision-maker weights (Xi and X2)

4.21 Final weights for each commuter method for different

83

values of Pn

4.22 Capital costs for implementation of a tram system in

89

Unimas based on the Red Trolley Feasibility Study

4.23 O&M costs for implementation of a tram system in

90

Unimas based on the Red Trolley Feasibility Study

4.24 Cost-benefit calculations for the Unimas Intercampus

94

List of Figures

Figure Page

1.1 Increase of Student Numbers in Unimas, 1992-2020 4

2.1 Study Approach of the NATA 31

3.1 Flowchart of the overall methodology used in this study 35

3.2 Detailed flowchart _{of the methodology used in the} 42

research

3.3

NATA process for this research

43

4.1

Potential routes within Unimas and various faculties,

54

centers, facilities and colleges

4.2 Example of an AHP diagram with two attribute levels 69

4.3 AHP diagram for the selection of the Unimas commuter 71

system

4.4

Radar chart representing the weights of each method for

78

Zi to Z8

4.5

Radar chart for the final weights of the commuter

84

methods for all breakdowns of Xi and X2

4.6

Proposed line and stops for the Unimas light rail

87

4.7

Proposed solutions to the built-up area problem

88

Nomenclature

AHP _- Analytic hierarchy process

APTA

_-

American Public Transport Association

BCR

_-

Benefit-cost ratio

CATS

_-

Center for Academic Information Services

CBA

Cost-benefit analysis

CI

_-

Consistency index

CLS

_-

Center for Language Studies

CTF 1-

Centralized Teaching Facility 1

CTF 2-

Centralized Teaching Facility 2

FK

_-

Faculty of Engineering

FSGK

_-

Faculty of Applied and Creative Arts

FSKPM

_-

Faculty of Cognitive Science and Human Development

FSKTM

_-

Faculty of Computer Science and Information Technology

FSTS

_-

Faculty of Resource Science and Technology

FTA

_-

Federal Transit Administration

HEP

_-

Student Affairs Department building

I-

The identity matrix

LR

Light rail

M-

Monorail

MADM _- Multiple attribute decision making

NATA _- New approach to transportation appraisal

O

Combined weights for all alternatives and third level

criteria weights

O&M

_-

Operational and maintenance

PIARC

_-

World Road Association

RM

_-

Ringgit Malaysia (Malaysian ringgit)

RT

_-

Rapid transit

TAZ

_-

_{Tun Ahmad Zaidi residential college}

UITP

_-

International Association of Public Transport

W-

Eigenvectors of a matrix

A-

Eigenvalue of a matrix

P-

Mean

o-

Standard deviation

ai, c - increase of cars during base year (2008)

ai, m

_-

increase of motorcycles during base year (2008)

Da

_-

Total days in an academic year (273 days; 2008/09 session)

Dt

_-

Total annual days (365 days)

&-

_{annual increase of cars during the period ne}

dm

_{annual increase of motorcycles during the period nm}

Favg

_-

Average fuel used per day per bus

Nmax

_-

Total of Unimas buses at ideal use

Nn

_-

Number of operational buses at any given time

nc

_-

number of years with steady and proportional increase of

cars (2008-2020)

nm

_-

number of years with steady and proportional increase of

motorcycles (2008-2020)

Pn

_-

Combined criteria weights of decision makers and second

level attributes for various Xn fractions

Xn

_-

Decision maker weights

y

_-

Second level attribute weights

Zn

_-

Third level attribute weights

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In its sixteen-year existence so far, never has Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) seen such intense growth in terms of academic activity and enrolment

numbers, especially after the opening of its new campus in 2006. Accompanying this growth however, is an underlying worry about its capacity; whether or not it

can cope with future student numbers which are expected to rise to 20000 by the year 2020 (The Borneo Post Online, 2008).

Having such a student population would require not only planning in terms

of classroom sizes, facilities, food and board, but also logistical needs. A good transportation _{system will be able to facilitate in moving students and staff to}

various locations effectively and at a low cost for the university to bear, hence enhancing the overall connectivity within the campus.

1.1.1 History _{of Unimas}

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) was established on 24 December

1992 as Malaysia's eighth public university with an initial enrolment of 118

students and 30 academic staff in two faculties. Studies initially commenced at

the Telekom Training College, Simpang Tiga, Kuching, before moving to the

East Campus at Kota Samarahan in 1994. A further four faculties were also

established that year, bringing the total number of faculties to six. But even

though experiencing such growth in its early stages, the university nevertheless

remained in the East Campus in Kota Samarahan while awaiting construction

of the newer, more permanent West Campus.

In 1995, the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences started enrolling

students and this was followed in 1996 by the Faculty of Economics and

Business, which brought the total number of faculties to the planned eight.

Growing from strength to strength, Unimas finally moved to its West Campus in

2006, with its official opening conducted by then Prime Minister Abdullah

Ahmad Badawi on 18 April 2006, almost fourteen years after its establishment.

1.1.2 Student Population

As mentioned in Section 1.1.1, the initial population in Unimas at its

establishment in 1992 was 118 students and 30 staff. After moving to the East Campus in 1994, its student population rose to 443. This number steadily rose by an average of about 450 students per year until the university moved to the

new West Campus in 2006, which had the capacity to accept more students. This was reflected in the enrolment figure for the 2006/2007 academic year, which jumped to 7500, up from 5972 in the previous academic year of 2005/2006.

Figures from the Unimas Chancellery (2008) and university website (Unimas, 2009) put the student population at 9087 and 10885 for the 2007/2008 and 2008/2009 academic year respectively, and this is expected, as mentioned before, to rise to 20000 by the year 2020. The statistics on student population growth obtained from the Chancellery and website have been compiled into the form of a table (Table 1.1) and graph (Figure 1.1) as can be seen in the next two pages.

Table 1.1: Student and Staff Population from 1992 to 2020 (Unimas

Chancellery, 2008; Borneo Post, 2008)

Academic Year Student Population Student Population Growth Population Growth Percentage Increase/Decrease of Population Growth Percentage 1992/1993 118 _{- - -} 1993/1994 443 325 275.42% _+275.42% 1994/1995 735 292 65.91% _-209.51% 1995/1996 1110 375 51.02% _-14.89% 1996/1997 1596 486 43.78% _{. 7.24%} 1997/1998 2153 557 34.90% _-8.88% 1998/1999 2568 415 19.28% _-15.62% 1999/2000 3174 606 23.60% _+4.32% 2000/2001 3931 757 23.85% _+0.25% 2001/2002 4694 763 19.41% _-4.44% 2002/2003 5147 453 9.65% _-9.76% 2003/2004 5384 237 4.40% _-5.25% 2004/2005 5671 287 5.33% _+0.93% 2005/2006 5972 301 5.31% _-0.02% 2006/2007 7500 1528 25.59% _+20.28% 2007/2008 9087 1587 21.16% _-4.43% 2008/2009 10885 1798 19.79% _-1.37% 2020 20000 10913 120.09% _+98.93%

3