Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Evaluation of Railway Transportation Performance Based on CRITIC-Relative Entropy Method in China

Evaluation of Railway Transportation Performance Based on CRITIC-Relative Entropy Method in China Hindawi Journal of Advanced Transportation Volume 2023, Article ID 5257482, 11 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5257482 Research Article Evaluation of Railway Transportation Performance Based on CRITIC-Relative Entropy Method in China 1 1 2 Liangliang Zhang , Qian Cheng, and Siyuan Qu School of Transportation and Management, Nanjing Institute of Railway Technology, Nanjing 210031, China Shanghai Railway Bureau Group Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200070, China Correspondence should be addressed to Liangliang Zhang; 414106125@qq.com Received 26 April 2022; Revised 15 October 2022; Accepted 24 November 2022; Published 7 March 2023 Academic Editor: Yang Yang Copyright © 2023 Liangliang Zhang et al. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Railway transportation afects the overall transportation process and integrated sustainable development. Evaluation of the railway transportation performance is of great signifcance for building an efcient and comprehensive railway transportation system. Te research establishes a methodology to evaluate railway transportation performance in China. Firstly, the research determines the indexes for evaluation of railway transportation performance, including railway safety, infrastructure, equipment, operation efciency, and green development. Second, the weight of each index is calculated by using criteria importance through the intercriteria correlation method (CRITIC). Tird, the railway transportation performance is assessed based on multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), by applying the CRITIC-relative entropy method. Finally, the empirical analysis shows that, in 2018, the railway transportation performance is underdeveloped in almost half of China’s railway bureaus and that there are obvious diferences between railway bureaus in the east and west. Te evaluation of railway transportation performance could be used to improve the sustainable ability of railway transportation in China. [1], generalized function [2], coupling mode [3, 4], sequential 1. Introduction interactive modeling for urban systems [5], space syntax [6], Railway transportation is an ecological type of transportation catastrophe progression method [7]. Tese methods make system and has played a key role in social and economic a signifcant contribution to the evaluation of railway development in many countries since the 19th century. China transportation performance in a complicated decision- is a populous and large economic volume country with a vast making environment. However, most of these previous territory, and railway transportation is an important part of studies only consider railway infrastructural, equipment, and the integrated transportation system. In recent years, with the service criteria for the assessment of the performance of development of urbanization, railway transportation has railway transportation. In general, there are many other developed rapidly in China. By the end of 2021, the total factors that afect railway transportation performance, such as safety factors, and green development factors [8–10], and operation mileage of China’s railways has reached 150,000 kilometers, including 40,000 kilometers of high-speed rail- these factors have become more and more important in ways. Evaluation of the railway transportation performance railway transportation performance evaluation. In fact, the has a great signifcance for building an efcient and com- nature of railway transportation performance evaluation prehensive railway transportation system in China. At actually belongs to the issues of MCDM [11]. In this case, the present, some progress has been made in theoretical explo- weights of diferent factors which are used to distinguish the ration and concrete practice to gain a better understanding of impact of diferent factors and the evaluation method which is railway transportation performance, including technique for used to measure the railway transportation performance have order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) a great infuence on the assessment results. Terefore, how to 2 Journal of Advanced Transportation determine the index weights [12] and evaluation method bureaus in China. Te study hypothesis is that railway [13, 14] reasonably become the key problems of railway transportation performance has diferent levels of devel- transportation performance assessment. In the process of opment, and could be ranked according to the complex solving the index weight problem of multicriteria decision- impact of criteria. According to the requirements of this making, there are three kinds of reliable methods. Te frst paper, a fow chart of the proposed method is shown in type is the subjective weighting method, such as expert Figure 1. scoring [15], Delphi [16] and analytic hierarchy process First. Determination of the index. Based on the relevant (AHP) [17], interval analytic hierarchy [18]. Te second type research, a railway transportation performance evalu- is the objective weighting method, such as the variation ation index system has been proposed according to the coefcient method [19], variance maximization [20], CRITIC principles of the combination of scientifc, operability, [21], and entropy weight method [22]. Te other type is the integrity, dynamic, and stability. combination method of subjectivity and objectivity [23–25], Second. Calculation of the index weight. Te index such as elimination et choice translating reality [26], fuzzy weights are calculated by CRITIC, which could make comprehensive evaluation method [27, 28]. In the process of full use of the information contained in each solving the evaluation method problem of MCDA, there are evaluation index. diferent ways of ranking and the method chosen depends on the decision maker and the problem. Te frst type of Tird. Establishing the evaluation method. Te railway comprehensive evaluation method is that can directly de- transportation performance is assessed by applying the termine the index weight, including AHP [29, 30], and en- CRITIC-relative entropy method. tropy weight method [31, 32]. Te second type of evaluation method that indirectly determines the index weight, includes the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method [33], matter 2.1. Step 1: Determining the Index to Evaluate the Railway element analysis method [34], grey comprehensive evaluation Transportation Performance. In this research, based on the method [35], cosine method [36], TOPSIS [37], catastrophe characteristics of the railway transportation industry, the progression method [38], osculating value method [39], railway transportation performance is assessed by safety in relative entropy evaluation method [40], and Bayesian net- production, railway infrastructure, railway equipment, rail- work model [41]. Te above studies have developed research way operation efciency, and railway green development. methods and applications for railway transportation perfor- And these indexes are proposed by the principles of the mance. However, due to the complexity of railway trans- combination of scientifc, operability, integrity, dynamic, and portation performance evaluation and the limitations of stability [39]. Te safety in production criteria refects the railway transportation statistics, it is difcult to get accurate development level of operational safety and is of vital im- index weights and obtain an appropriate comprehensive portance to the development of the national economy and evaluation method for the railway transportation perfor- society. Te infrastructural criteria address the development mance evaluation. level of the railway network and are important to ensure the Terefore, this paper utilizes the idea of MCDM to capacity of the railway lines. Te equipment criteria indicate propose an objective evaluation method for the evaluation of the modernization level of railway transportation equipment railway transportation performance in China. It includes the and are the basis for completing the production of passenger selection of evaluation indexes based on analyzing the transport and freight transport. Te operation efciency characteristics of China’s railway transportation, de- criteria measure the operation status level of railway trans- termination of the evaluation index weights, and establish- portation. Te green development criteria show the level of ment of an evaluation method. It advances the existing sustainability. Tese indicators comprehensively refect the literature on railway transportation performance in at least characteristics of railway transportation performance from the following three aspects: (i) establishing the railway the aspects of quality, quantity, efciency, safety, and sus- transportation performance index, including railway safety, tainability. Table 1 presents the studied criteria. railway infrastructure, railway equipment, operation ef- Te rate of the equivalent incident (C1) [12] and the rate of ciency, and green development; (ii) using the CRITIC method employee death (C2) present the level of railway safety in to identify the weight of diferent evaluation criteria; and (iii) production. Te length of railway lines (C3) presents the level proposing weighted relative entropy method to evaluate of the railway infrastructure quantity. Te proportion of China’s railway transportation performance. continuous welded rail (C4), the proportion of double-tracking Te organization of the rest of this research is as follows: railways (C5), and the proportion of high-speed railway Section 2 constructs a research methodology by describing mileage (C6) present the level of railway infrastructure quality. the application steps; Section 3 presents computational Te number of locomotives (C7), number of passenger cars procedures and an analysis of the results; and Section 4 (C8), and number of freight cars (C9) present the moderni- concludes and discusses this study. zation level of railway equipment. Passenger transport intensity (C10) and freight transport intensity (C11) measure the pro- ductivity of railway transportation. Te revenue rate of 2. Materials and Methods transporting passengers person-kilometer (C12) and revenue rate of transporting freight per ton-kilometer (C13) present the Te objective of the research is to evaluate railway trans- portation performance in diferent railway transportation level of the economic performance of the railway Journal of Advanced Transportation 3 Determinate Evaluation Indexes Safety in Railway Railway Operation Green Production infrastructure equipment efficiency development Establish CRITIC Method Initial matrix Normalized matrix Calculate Correlation Coefficient Calculate Weight Establish Improved Relative Entropy Method Calculate Weight Matrix Select the Best and Worst Evaluation Points Calculate Relative Entropy Calculate Relative Similarity Distance Figure Out result of the Evaluation Figure 1: Te steps of the railway transportation performance evaluation method. transportation. Te proportion of electrifed railways (C14) and results based on the comprehensive evaluation value with comprehensive energy consumption per unit transportation the explicitly given weight vector. Terefore, it is necessary workload (C15) present the level of sustainability development. to reasonably determine the index weight to obtain accurate and scientifc evaluation results. In this study, CRITIC is proposed to determine the weights of the objectives, and 2.2. Step 2: Calculation of the Index Weights Based on the these weights are used to evaluate the relative importance of CRITIC Method. In the process of railway transportation each objective in making the ranking of railway trans- performance evaluation, it is easy to obtain the evaluation portation performance in China. Te CRITIC method is an 4 Journal of Advanced Transportation Table 1: Criteria for the railway transportation performance evaluation. Criteria Index Type Name C1 Rate of the equivalent incident, 1/million ton kilometer Safety in production C2 Rate of employees’ death, 1/ten thousand employees C3 Length of railway lines (km) C4 Proportion of continuous welded rail (%) Railway infrastructure C5 Proportion of double-tracking railways (%) C6 Proportion of high-speed railway mileage (%) C7 Number of locomotives Railway equipment C8 Number of passenger cars C9 Number of freight cars C10 Passenger transport intensity (ten thousand passengers/km) C11 Freight transport intensity (ten thousand freight/km) Operation efciency Revenue rate of transporting passengers person-kilometer (yuan/one billion C12 person-kilometer) C13 Revenue rate of transporting freight ton-kilometer (one billion ton-kilometer) C14 Proportion of electrifed railway (%) Green development Comprehensive energy consumption per unit transportation workload (kg/ten C15 thousand kilometers) Journal of Advanced Transportation 5 objective weighting method [21], which can refect the ω � . n (5) amount of information contained by each index through the 􏽐 c relevance of indicators and the confict between indicators [42]. Among them, the variability of the index is charac- terized by the standard deviation, which can refect the size 2.3. Step 3: Establishing the Evaluation Method Based on of the diference in the value of the evaluation object under Relative Entropy Method. As mentioned above, the evalu- the same indicator, and the confict between indicators is ation of railway transportation performance is actually the characterized by the correlation coefcient. Te CRITIC comparison of the evaluation results of multiple railway method is more objective and scientifc [43]. Te steps of the transportation bureaus, by applying the MCDM. Terefore, CRITIC method are as follows: based on an explicitly given weight vector, it is easy to get Step 1: Determining the decision matrix accurate and scientifc evaluation results by establishing an For a fnite set R of m alternatives and a given system of appropriate comprehensive evaluation method. In this study, the weighted relative entropy evaluation method is n indexes, MCDM in its general form can be defned as follows: proposed to analyze railway transportation performance in China. Relative entropy is a basic concept in probability R � r 􏼐 􏼑 (i � 1, 2, · · · , m; j � 1, 2, · · · , n). (1) ij m×n theory and information theory, which is proposed by Kullback and Leibler [45]. Te relative entropy evaluation Step 2: Calculating standardized matrix method combines relative entropy with the TOPSIS method Performing the forward or reverse processing of the [40]. Te method uses relative entropy to measure the relative distance between the evaluated scheme and the ideal decision matrix [44], we get scheme [46], and the relative closeness degree is applied to ij ⎧ ⎪ 􏽱����� ⎪ , identify order relations among all schemes [40, 47, 48]. Te ⎪ 2 􏽐􏼐r 􏼑 ij concrete steps of the weighted relative entropy evaluation method are as follows: r � (2) ij ⎪ 1/r Step 1: Calculating weighted matrix ij 􏽱������� ⎪ ∗ Te weighted matrix R will be normalized by using 􏽐􏼐1/r 􏼑 ij equations (2)–(5), and the weighted matrix can be defned as follows: where r is the positive index and r is the ij ij negative index. ∗ ∗ ∗ R � 􏼐r 􏼑 , r � r ∗ ω . (6) ij i ij ij m×n Step 3: Calculating the correlation coefcient of the index Step 2: Determining the positive and negative ideal Te linear correlation coefcient r between index i solution ij and index j is defned as follows: Te positive and negative ideal solutions can be defned as follows: 􏽐 r − r􏼁 􏼐r − r 􏼑 1 i i i j + ∗ 􏽱�������������������� � ρ � , F � max r , ⎧ ⎨ (3) ij j ij m m (7) 􏽐 r − r 􏽐 r − r 􏼁 􏼐 􏼑 ⎩ − ∗ 1 i i 1 j j F � min r , j ij where ρ represents the correlation coefcient be- ij + − where F and F represents the positive ideal solution j j tween the ith index and the jth index; r and r rep- i j ∗ and negative ideal solution, respectively; max r and ij resent the mean value of the ith index and the jth index, min r represents the maximum and minimum of the ij respectively. jth index. Step 4: Calculating the amount of information covered Step 3: Calculating the remoteness by each index Te relative entropy of remoteness is determined as A measure of the confict created by index j with re- follows: spect to the decision situation defned by the rest of the + + index is described as follows: ⎧ ⎪ F 1 − F ⎪ + + + i i ⎝ ⎠ ⎪ ⎛ ⎞ g � 􏽘 F lg + 1 − F 􏼁 lg , ∗ ∗ j i i ⎪ r 1 − r n ij ij ⎪ i�1 c � σ 􏽘􏼐1 − ρ 􏼑, (4) j j ij (8) i�1 ⎪ ⎪ m − − F 1 − F − − − i i ⎪ ⎛ ⎝ ⎞ ⎠ where σ represents the mean square deviation of the g � 􏽘 F lg + 1 − F 􏼁 lg , ⎩ j i ∗ i ∗ r 1 − r ij ij i�1 jth index; c represents confict created by index j with respect to the decision. where g represents the relative entropy between the Step 5: Calculating the weight of each index jth scheme and positive ideal scheme; g represents the Te index weight value is defned as follows: relative entropy between the jth scheme and negative 6 Journal of Advanced Transportation ideal scheme; and r represents the weighted Judging from the results, it shows that Shanghai Railway ij decision index. Bureau, Zhengzhou Railway Bureau, Taiyuan Railway Bu- reau, Beijing Railway Bureau, and Guangzhou Railway Step 4: Calculating relative closeness Bureau round out the top fve, which shows that the railway Relative closeness is determined as follows: transportation performance of these railway bureaus is well- developed and could drive the development of other railway S � , (9) j + − bureaus. Among them, the railway transportation perfor- g + g j j mance value of Shanghai Railway Bureau has reached 0.53, + − which is far higher than that of other railway bureaus, and where g and g represents the relative entropy with i j this shows that Shanghai Railway Bureau has achieved high- the positive ideal scheme and negative ideal scheme, quality development. Te reasons are as follows: Shanghai respectively. Railway Bureau which is located in the economically de- Step 5: Figuring out the optimal evaluation unit veloped Yangtze River Delta region of China, mainly gov- It is clearly shown that the smaller of the S means a low erns the lines in Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Anhui level of the railway transportation performance, and the provinces; the railway network of Shanghai Railway Bureau bigger of the S means a high level of the railway is the most intensive and perfect, and the undertaken transportation performance. passenger and freight transportation is the busiest in China. On the contrary, Qingzang Railway Bureau, Hohhot Railway 3. Results and Discussion Bureau, Urumqi Railway Bureau, Nanning Railway Bureau, and Wuhan Railway Bureau are the bottom fve, which 3.1. Data. In order to evaluate railway transportation shows that the railway transportation performance of these performance in diferent railway transportation compa- railway bureaus is less developed. Among them, the railway nies in China, the researchers investigate the statistical transportation performance value of Qingzang Railway data of 18 railway bureaus in 2018 published by the China Bureau is the lowest. Te reasons are as follows: Qingzang Railway Corporation [49], and some missing data come Railway Bureau locates on the Qinghai Tibet Plateau which fromChina Statistical Yearbook 2019. Ten, based on the is called the “global ridge,” and the railway scale, railway statistical data of 18 railway transportation bureaus, the equipment quality, and railway operation efciency research normalizes the primitive matrix data and ac- are weak. quires the dimensionless normative matrix by using equation (1). Te standardized matrix is shown in Table 2. According to the defnition of the evaluation indexes, the 3.3.2. Spatial Pattern of Railway Transportation Performance. 15 evaluation indexes are all fxed-value evaluation in- Te railway transportation performance is divided into four dicators. Among them, C1, C2, and C15 are cost evalu- levels, namely, 0–0.01, underdeveloped railway trans- ation indexes, and others are beneft evaluation indexes. portation performance; 0.01–0.20, less developed railway In other words, if C1, C2, and C15 are close to 0, the better transportation performance; 0.20–0.30, relatively developed the performance of the railway bureau is; if the other railway transportation performance; and >0.30, developed evaluation index is close to 1, the higher performance of railway transportation performance. And the evaluation the railway transportation bureau is. results are shown in Figure 3. According to Figure 3, the following are the main spatial 3.2. Calculation of the Value of the Railway Transportation pattern of the railway transportation performance in China: Performance. According to the results of index di- (1) 3 railway bureaus (16.67%) have developed railway mensionless, the research calculates the weight of each index transportation performance; 4 railway bureaus (22.22%) by using equations (2)–(5), and the results are shown in have relatively developed railway transportation perfor- Table 3. From Table 3, we can see that the weight value of C1, mance; 8 railway bureaus (44.44%) have less developed C11, and C13 are larger, and these three indicators have railway transportation performance; 3 railway bureaus a great infuence on the evaluation results. (16.67%) have underdeveloped railway transportation per- By using equations (6)–(9), the performance evaluation formance. (2) Te railway transportation performance results of 18 railway transportation bureaus are shown in shows a pattern of decline from coastal bureaus toward the Table 4. From Table 4, we can fnd that the railway trans- interior of the bureaus, with the highest railway trans- portation performance of the 18 railway transportation portation performance indices in coastal bureaus and the bureaus is diferent and indices range from 0.02 to 0.53. lowest indices in western bureaus and parts of central bu- reaus. (3) Te railway transportation performance is sig- nifcantly higher in central and eastern bureaus than in 3.3. Discussion western bureaus, for example, Shanghai Railway Bureau, 3.3.1. Comparison Evaluation Results of Railway Trans- Zhengzhou Railway Bureau, Taiyuan Railway Bureau, Bei- jing Railway Bureau, and Guangzhou Railway Bureau have portation Performance. According to the evaluation results of railway transportation performance, the performance higher railway transportation performance than other areas of China, which is consistent with China’s economic de- measurement rank of the 18 railway transportation bureaus is shown in Figure 2. velopment pattern. Journal of Advanced Transportation 7 Table 2: Te results of index dimensionless. Ha’erbin Shenyang Beijing Taiyuan Hohhot Zhengzhou Wuhan Xi’an Jinan Shanghai Nanchang Guangzhou Nanning Chengdu Kunming Lanzhou Urumqi Qingzang C1 0.04 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.33 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.73 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.19 0.31 0.35 0.09 0.04 C2 0.34 0.43 0.35 0.22 0.12 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.36 0.18 0.25 0.14 0.25 0.08 0.17 0.12 0.05 C3 0.26 0.44 0.27 0.14 0.20 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.34 0.26 0.31 0.18 0.32 0.12 0.17 0.20 0.10 C4 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.19 0.25 C5 0.16 0.19 0.27 0.29 0.15 0.32 0.35 0.23 0.27 0.28 0.23 0.26 0.19 0.20 0.14 0.24 0.19 0.14 C6 0.12 0.19 0.22 0.11 0.05 0.26 0.23 0.15 0.28 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.29 0.25 0.24 0.18 0.12 0.06 C7 0.22 0.40 0.33 0.23 0.19 0.26 0.20 0.26 0.15 0.29 0.14 0.27 0.16 0.27 0.12 0.27 0.16 0.07 C8 0.27 0.33 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.48 0.26 0.47 0.14 0.32 0.12 0.11 0.16 0.05 C9 0.26 0.44 0.27 0.14 0.20 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.34 0.26 0.31 0.18 0.32 0.12 0.17 0.20 0.10 C10 0.11 0.14 0.31 0.14 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.21 0.53 0.24 0.40 0.16 0.24 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.04 C11 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.84 0.18 0.23 0.08 0.18 0.19 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.06 C12 0.26 0.18 0.29 0.26 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.22 0.19 0.30 0.20 0.29 0.20 0.30 0.36 0.14 0.16 0.20 C13 0.34 0.20 0.15 0.27 0.37 0.16 0.10 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.13 0.12 0.24 0.14 0.26 0.13 0.34 0.34 C14 0.10 0.17 0.24 0.29 0.11 0.27 0.30 0.27 0.30 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.20 0.28 0.23 0.30 0.15 0.12 C15 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.33 0.30 0.23 0.25 0.16 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.20 0.16 0.28 0.24 0.18 8 Journal of Advanced Transportation Table 3: Calculation results of the index weight. Index Weight value C1 0.12 C2 0.06 C3 0.05 C4 0.01 C5 0.04 C6 0.07 C7 0.05 C8 0.08 C9 0.06 C10 0.07 C11 0.15 C12 0.05 C13 0.10 C14 0.05 C15 0.04 Table 4: Evaluation results of railway transportation performance. Railway transportation bureau Evaluation value Ha’erbin 0.13 Shenyang 0.15 Beijing 0.25 Taiyuan 0.34 Hohhot 0.06 Zhengzhou 0.34 Wuhan 0.12 Xi’an 0.16 Jinan 0.20 Shanghai 0.53 Nanchang 0.15 Guangzhou 0.22 Nanning 0.11 Chengdu 0.21 Kunming 0.15 Lanzhou 0.16 Urumqi 0.08 Qingzang 0.02 0.60 0.53 0.50 0.40 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.00 Figure 2: Comparison of performance evaluation results of 18 railway bureaus. Qingzang Hohhot Urumqi Nanning Wuhan Ha’erbin Kunming Nanchang Shenyang Xi’an Lanzhou Jinan Chengdu Guangzhou Beijing Taiyuan Zhengzhou Shanghai Taiyuan Guanghzou Lanzhou Journal of Advanced Transportation 9 Ha’erbin Shenyang Urumqi Hohhot Beijing Jinan Qingzang Zhengzhou Xi’an Shanghai Wuhan Chengdu Nanchang Kunming 0.0-0.1: Underdeveloped Nanning 0.1-0.2: Less underdeveloped 0.2-0.3: Relatively developed >0.3: Developed Figure 3: Te assessment results of 18 railway bureaus. 4. Conclusions Conflicts of Interest Railways have unarguably many advantages, such as higher Te authors declare no confict of interest. safety, less energy consumption, less pollution, and less trafc congestion, compared to other means of transport. Authors’ Contributions Evaluation of the railway transportation performance has L.Z. and S.Q. performed conceptualization; S.Q. curated the a great signifcance for building an efcient and compre- data; L.Z. and Q.C. performed the formal analysis; L.Z. hensive railway transportation system. Terefore, based on acquired funding; L.Z.developed methodology; L.Z. wrote indicators of railway safety, railway infrastructure, railway the original draft; L.Z. and C. Q. reviewed and edited the equipment, operation efciency, and green development, manuscript. this research evaluates the railway transportation perfor- mance in China in 2018, by applying the CRITIC-relative Acknowledgments entropy evaluation method. Te fndings are as follows: (1) In 2018, the railway transportation performance of the 18 Tis research is supported by the Railway Culture Develop- railway transportation bureaus is diferent, among which ment Research Institute (TWK2021003), Advanced Study and Shanghai Railway Bureau is the most developed and Training of Professional Leaders for Higher Vocational Col- Qingzang Railway Bureau is underdeveloped. (2) In 2018, leges in Jiangsu Province (2022GRGDYX034), Jiangsu Railway the railway transportation performance in nearly 40% of Industry Collaborative Innovation Institute (KFJ2213), and the bureaus of China is ideal. (3) In 2018, the railway High-Speed Railway Safety Center (GTAQ202206). transportation performance is signifcantly higher in central and eastern bureaus than in western bureaus, which References is consistent with China’s economic development pattern. Te results of this research could be used to improve the [1] S. Liu, T. Zhang, and R. Wang, “Chinese railways develop- sustainability of the railway transportation bureau in ment level research based on entropy,” Frontiers in Artifcial China. Intelligence and Applications, vol. 314, pp. 305–313, 2019. [2] X. Guo and W. Xu, “Research on evaluation of the devel- opment level of regional HSR networks,” Railway Transport Data Availability and Economy, vol. 43, no. 10, p. 8, 2021. [3] T. Zheng, “Research on development of China’s high-speed (1) Te statistical data of 18 railway transportation bu- railway and economy,” Journal of the China Railway Society, reaus in 2018 published by the China Railway Corpora- vol. 42, no. 7, p. 8, 2020. tion; (2) company portals of the railway transportation [4] J. Jin, “Spatio-temporal coupling relations between the ac- bureaus; (3) China Statistical Yearbook 2019. cessibility of high-speed railway and the urban driving foreces 10 Journal of Advanced Transportation in China,” Geography and Geo-Information Science, vol. 35, Railway Transport and Economy, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 16–24, pp. 2019–2023, 2021. 2021. [5] S. Stoilova, N. Munier, M. Kendra, and T Skrucany, “Multi- [23] J. Zheng, Y. Wang, and S. Chen, “Dynamic case retrieval criteria evaluation of railway network performance in method with subjective preferences and objective information countries of the TEN-T orient–east med corridor,” Sustain- for emergency decision making,” IEEE/CAA Journal of ability, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 1482, 2020. Automatica Sinica, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 749–757, 2018. [6] L. Dong, F. Shi, and G. Zhang, “Analysis of spatiotemporal [24] J. Ma, Z. P. Fan, and L. H. Huang, “A subjective and objective efciency and fairness of railway passenger transport network integrated approach to determine attribute weights,” Euro- pean Journal of Operational Research, vol. 112, no. 2, based on space syntax: a case study of Yangtze River Delta,” Planning and Construction, vol. 36, no. 10, p. 8, 2021. pp. 397–404, 1999. [25] Y. Wang, Z. Guo, and G. Wang, “Research on high-speed [7] Z. Yan, X. Wang, W. Qin, and Y. Zhao, “Valuation and evolution law of sustainable railway transport development,” railway operation safety evaluation index,” Railway Quality Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, vol. 17, no. 12, Control, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 32–37, 2021. p. 8, 2020. [26] L. Duckstein and M. Gershon, “Multicriterion analysis of [8] L. Li, “Connotation and evaluation index system for building a vegetation management problem using ELECTRE II,” China’s strength in transportation,” Journal of Beijing Jiaotong Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 254–261, University, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 8, 2020. 1983. [27] G. Tian, H. Zhang, Y. Feng et al., “Operation patterns analysis [9] J. Zhou and P. Xu, “Evaluation index system of transportation powers,” Journal of Transport Management Institute Ministry of automotive components remanufacturing industry devel- of Transport, vol. 28, no. 4, p. 6, 2018. opment in China,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 164, [10] Y. Yang, K. He, Y.-peng Wang, Zz Yuan, Yh Yin, and Mz Guo, pp. 1363–1375, 2017. “Identifcation of dynamic trafc crash risk for cross-area [28] Mo Hong, J. Wang, X. Li, and Z. Wu, “Linguistic dynamic freeways based on statistical and machine learning methods,” modeling and analysis of psychological health state using Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, vol. 595, interval type-2 fuzzy sets,” IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin.vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 366–373, 2015. Article ID 127083, 2022. [11] R. V. Rao and B. K. Patel, “A subjective and objective in- [29] Y. Wang, J. Guo, and L. Li, “Condition evaluation of subgrade in highway operation period based on analytical hierarchy tegrated multiple attribute decision making method for material selection,” Materials & Design, vol. 31, no. 10, process,” Journal of South China University of Technology, pp. 4738–4747, 2010. vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 37–43, 2017. [12] D. Sun, Y. Jia, L. Qin, Y. Yang, and J. Zhang, “A variance [30] J. Li, “Appraisal of humanization level of municipal trans- maximization based weight optimization method for railway portation based on analytic hierarchy process,” Journal of transportation safety performance measurement,” Sustain- Wuhan University of Technology, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 175–178, ability, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 2903, 2018. 2007. [13] X. Wang, Evolution and Classifcation Research on Evaluation [31] W. Tang and Z. Han, “A comprehensive evaluation method of Method, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, City, 2009. fnancial position based on information entropy,” Journal of Nanjing University of Science and Technology, vol. 25, no. 6, [14] X. Zhang and N. He, “Study on classifcation and applicability of comprehensive evaluation methods,” Statistics & Decisions, pp. 650–653, 2001. [32] Z. Zhou and B. Ma, “Optimal response scheme based on vol. 38, no. 6, 2022. [15] Q. Song, X. Wang, and T. Hu, “Review of multiple attribute entropy method and grey relational decision,” Statistics & evaluation method and it’s development,” Journal OF De- Decisions, vol. 476, no. 8, pp. 46–49, 2017. cision Making and Decision Support Systems, no. 4, pp. 130– [33] P. Zhang, Y. Lu, and Y. Zhao, “Based on the fuzzy com- 140, 1997. prehensive evaluation method of highway passenger sat- [16] H. A. Linstone and M. Turof, Te Delphi Method: Techniques isfacion research,” Technology & Economy in Areas of and Applications, Addison-Wesley, Boston, 1975. Communications, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 21–24, 2014. [17] Z. Guo, X. Shang, and H. Li, “AHP-based safety assessment [34] C. Ma and S. Liming, “Application of matter element analysis model for rail transit system,” China Railway Science, vol. 32, method in evaluation of rail transit operation performance,” Journal of Dalian Jiaotong University, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 12–16, pp. 123–125, 2011. [18] Y. Yang and Z. Yuan, “Exploring trafc crash occurrence 2019. [35] L. Zhou and Li Tang, “Discussion on evaluation of railway mechanism towards cross-area freeways via an improved data mining approach,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, freight service quality based on grey comprehensive evalua- Part A: Systems, vol. 148, pp. 2473–2907, 2022. tion method,” Railway Transport and Economy, vol. 39, no. 12, [19] S. Chu and C. Lai, “Evaluation of energy saving and emission pp. 47–53, 2021. reduction of Anhui based on variance coefcient approach,” [36] H. Zhou, “Research on logistics service provider selection based on entropy weight and cosine decision model,” Journal China Population Resources & Environment, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 512–516, 2011. of Chifeng University, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 98–101, 2016. [37] Y. Wang, Y. Guo, and Z. Tian, “Evaluation on the importance [20] Z. Xu, “Two variance maximization methods for multi at- tribute decision making,” J. Eng. Manag.vol. 15, no. 2, of highway hub nodes in urban agglomeration based on pp. 11–13, 2001. TOPSIS model,” Highways, vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 141–145, 2019. [21] D. Diakoulaki, G. Mavrotas, and L. Papayannakis, “De- [38] L. Zhang and Y. Zhang, “Research on rural human resource termining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the capacity evaluation based on improved catastrophe pro- CRITIC method,” Computers & Operations Research, vol. 22, gression method,” Journal of Dalian University of Technolgy, no. 7, pp. 763–770, 1995. vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 70–76, 2016. [22] Z. Pan and F. Han, “Study of xinjiang railway network ex- [39] Y. Yang, Z. Yuan, J. Chen, and M. Guo, “Assessment of pansion pattern based on entropy grey relational method,” osculating value method based on entropy weight to Journal of Advanced Transportation 11 transportation energy conservation and emission reduction,” Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 2413–2423, 2017. [40] M. Zhao, W. Qiu, and B. Liu, “Relative entropy evaluation method for multiple attribute decision making,” Control and Decision, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 1098–1100+1104, 2010. [41] Y. Yang and K. Wang, “Predicting freeway trafc crash se- verity using XGBoost-bayesian network model with consid- eration of features interaction,” Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 2022, Article ID 4257865, 2022. [42] S. Li, Z. Kuang, Y. Xiao, Z. Qiao, and W. Yang, “Rockburst tendency prediction based on an integrating method of combination weighting and matter-element extension theory: a case study in the Bayu Tunnel of the Sichuan-Tibet Railway,” Engineering Geology, vol. 308, Article ID 106796, 2022. [43] H. Zhao and J. Li, “Grading evaluation of power quality based on CRITIC and improved Grey-TOPSIS,” Power System Protection and Control, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1–8, 2022. [44] D. Yao, “Bidding decision of construction engineering pro- jects based on relative entropy ranking,” Journal of Quanti- tative Economics, vol. 32, no. 04, pp. 106–110, 2015. [45] S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, “On information and suf- ciency,” Te Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 1951. [46] T. M. Cover and A. Tomas Joy, Elements of Information Teory, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, 2006. [47] L. Fei and Y. Deng, “A new method to identify infuential nodes based on relative entropy,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 104, pp. 257–267, 2017. [48] Y. He, J. Xia, and Z. Wang, “Application of relative entropy ranking in bidding decision of water conservancy project,” Journal of Mathematics in Practice and Teory, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 61–67, 2015. [49] China Railway Press, China Railway Yearbook 2018, China Railway Press, Beijing, China, 2019. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Advanced Transportation Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Evaluation of Railway Transportation Performance Based on CRITIC-Relative Entropy Method in China

Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/evaluation-of-railway-transportation-performance-based-on-critic-eiYr4oHL94

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
ISSN
0197-6729
eISSN
2042-3195
DOI
10.1155/2023/5257482
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Hindawi Journal of Advanced Transportation Volume 2023, Article ID 5257482, 11 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5257482 Research Article Evaluation of Railway Transportation Performance Based on CRITIC-Relative Entropy Method in China 1 1 2 Liangliang Zhang , Qian Cheng, and Siyuan Qu School of Transportation and Management, Nanjing Institute of Railway Technology, Nanjing 210031, China Shanghai Railway Bureau Group Co., Ltd., Shanghai 200070, China Correspondence should be addressed to Liangliang Zhang; 414106125@qq.com Received 26 April 2022; Revised 15 October 2022; Accepted 24 November 2022; Published 7 March 2023 Academic Editor: Yang Yang Copyright © 2023 Liangliang Zhang et al. Tis is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Railway transportation afects the overall transportation process and integrated sustainable development. Evaluation of the railway transportation performance is of great signifcance for building an efcient and comprehensive railway transportation system. Te research establishes a methodology to evaluate railway transportation performance in China. Firstly, the research determines the indexes for evaluation of railway transportation performance, including railway safety, infrastructure, equipment, operation efciency, and green development. Second, the weight of each index is calculated by using criteria importance through the intercriteria correlation method (CRITIC). Tird, the railway transportation performance is assessed based on multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM), by applying the CRITIC-relative entropy method. Finally, the empirical analysis shows that, in 2018, the railway transportation performance is underdeveloped in almost half of China’s railway bureaus and that there are obvious diferences between railway bureaus in the east and west. Te evaluation of railway transportation performance could be used to improve the sustainable ability of railway transportation in China. [1], generalized function [2], coupling mode [3, 4], sequential 1. Introduction interactive modeling for urban systems [5], space syntax [6], Railway transportation is an ecological type of transportation catastrophe progression method [7]. Tese methods make system and has played a key role in social and economic a signifcant contribution to the evaluation of railway development in many countries since the 19th century. China transportation performance in a complicated decision- is a populous and large economic volume country with a vast making environment. However, most of these previous territory, and railway transportation is an important part of studies only consider railway infrastructural, equipment, and the integrated transportation system. In recent years, with the service criteria for the assessment of the performance of development of urbanization, railway transportation has railway transportation. In general, there are many other developed rapidly in China. By the end of 2021, the total factors that afect railway transportation performance, such as safety factors, and green development factors [8–10], and operation mileage of China’s railways has reached 150,000 kilometers, including 40,000 kilometers of high-speed rail- these factors have become more and more important in ways. Evaluation of the railway transportation performance railway transportation performance evaluation. In fact, the has a great signifcance for building an efcient and com- nature of railway transportation performance evaluation prehensive railway transportation system in China. At actually belongs to the issues of MCDM [11]. In this case, the present, some progress has been made in theoretical explo- weights of diferent factors which are used to distinguish the ration and concrete practice to gain a better understanding of impact of diferent factors and the evaluation method which is railway transportation performance, including technique for used to measure the railway transportation performance have order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) a great infuence on the assessment results. Terefore, how to 2 Journal of Advanced Transportation determine the index weights [12] and evaluation method bureaus in China. Te study hypothesis is that railway [13, 14] reasonably become the key problems of railway transportation performance has diferent levels of devel- transportation performance assessment. In the process of opment, and could be ranked according to the complex solving the index weight problem of multicriteria decision- impact of criteria. According to the requirements of this making, there are three kinds of reliable methods. Te frst paper, a fow chart of the proposed method is shown in type is the subjective weighting method, such as expert Figure 1. scoring [15], Delphi [16] and analytic hierarchy process First. Determination of the index. Based on the relevant (AHP) [17], interval analytic hierarchy [18]. Te second type research, a railway transportation performance evalu- is the objective weighting method, such as the variation ation index system has been proposed according to the coefcient method [19], variance maximization [20], CRITIC principles of the combination of scientifc, operability, [21], and entropy weight method [22]. Te other type is the integrity, dynamic, and stability. combination method of subjectivity and objectivity [23–25], Second. Calculation of the index weight. Te index such as elimination et choice translating reality [26], fuzzy weights are calculated by CRITIC, which could make comprehensive evaluation method [27, 28]. In the process of full use of the information contained in each solving the evaluation method problem of MCDA, there are evaluation index. diferent ways of ranking and the method chosen depends on the decision maker and the problem. Te frst type of Tird. Establishing the evaluation method. Te railway comprehensive evaluation method is that can directly de- transportation performance is assessed by applying the termine the index weight, including AHP [29, 30], and en- CRITIC-relative entropy method. tropy weight method [31, 32]. Te second type of evaluation method that indirectly determines the index weight, includes the fuzzy comprehensive evaluation method [33], matter 2.1. Step 1: Determining the Index to Evaluate the Railway element analysis method [34], grey comprehensive evaluation Transportation Performance. In this research, based on the method [35], cosine method [36], TOPSIS [37], catastrophe characteristics of the railway transportation industry, the progression method [38], osculating value method [39], railway transportation performance is assessed by safety in relative entropy evaluation method [40], and Bayesian net- production, railway infrastructure, railway equipment, rail- work model [41]. Te above studies have developed research way operation efciency, and railway green development. methods and applications for railway transportation perfor- And these indexes are proposed by the principles of the mance. However, due to the complexity of railway trans- combination of scientifc, operability, integrity, dynamic, and portation performance evaluation and the limitations of stability [39]. Te safety in production criteria refects the railway transportation statistics, it is difcult to get accurate development level of operational safety and is of vital im- index weights and obtain an appropriate comprehensive portance to the development of the national economy and evaluation method for the railway transportation perfor- society. Te infrastructural criteria address the development mance evaluation. level of the railway network and are important to ensure the Terefore, this paper utilizes the idea of MCDM to capacity of the railway lines. Te equipment criteria indicate propose an objective evaluation method for the evaluation of the modernization level of railway transportation equipment railway transportation performance in China. It includes the and are the basis for completing the production of passenger selection of evaluation indexes based on analyzing the transport and freight transport. Te operation efciency characteristics of China’s railway transportation, de- criteria measure the operation status level of railway trans- termination of the evaluation index weights, and establish- portation. Te green development criteria show the level of ment of an evaluation method. It advances the existing sustainability. Tese indicators comprehensively refect the literature on railway transportation performance in at least characteristics of railway transportation performance from the following three aspects: (i) establishing the railway the aspects of quality, quantity, efciency, safety, and sus- transportation performance index, including railway safety, tainability. Table 1 presents the studied criteria. railway infrastructure, railway equipment, operation ef- Te rate of the equivalent incident (C1) [12] and the rate of ciency, and green development; (ii) using the CRITIC method employee death (C2) present the level of railway safety in to identify the weight of diferent evaluation criteria; and (iii) production. Te length of railway lines (C3) presents the level proposing weighted relative entropy method to evaluate of the railway infrastructure quantity. Te proportion of China’s railway transportation performance. continuous welded rail (C4), the proportion of double-tracking Te organization of the rest of this research is as follows: railways (C5), and the proportion of high-speed railway Section 2 constructs a research methodology by describing mileage (C6) present the level of railway infrastructure quality. the application steps; Section 3 presents computational Te number of locomotives (C7), number of passenger cars procedures and an analysis of the results; and Section 4 (C8), and number of freight cars (C9) present the moderni- concludes and discusses this study. zation level of railway equipment. Passenger transport intensity (C10) and freight transport intensity (C11) measure the pro- ductivity of railway transportation. Te revenue rate of 2. Materials and Methods transporting passengers person-kilometer (C12) and revenue rate of transporting freight per ton-kilometer (C13) present the Te objective of the research is to evaluate railway trans- portation performance in diferent railway transportation level of the economic performance of the railway Journal of Advanced Transportation 3 Determinate Evaluation Indexes Safety in Railway Railway Operation Green Production infrastructure equipment efficiency development Establish CRITIC Method Initial matrix Normalized matrix Calculate Correlation Coefficient Calculate Weight Establish Improved Relative Entropy Method Calculate Weight Matrix Select the Best and Worst Evaluation Points Calculate Relative Entropy Calculate Relative Similarity Distance Figure Out result of the Evaluation Figure 1: Te steps of the railway transportation performance evaluation method. transportation. Te proportion of electrifed railways (C14) and results based on the comprehensive evaluation value with comprehensive energy consumption per unit transportation the explicitly given weight vector. Terefore, it is necessary workload (C15) present the level of sustainability development. to reasonably determine the index weight to obtain accurate and scientifc evaluation results. In this study, CRITIC is proposed to determine the weights of the objectives, and 2.2. Step 2: Calculation of the Index Weights Based on the these weights are used to evaluate the relative importance of CRITIC Method. In the process of railway transportation each objective in making the ranking of railway trans- performance evaluation, it is easy to obtain the evaluation portation performance in China. Te CRITIC method is an 4 Journal of Advanced Transportation Table 1: Criteria for the railway transportation performance evaluation. Criteria Index Type Name C1 Rate of the equivalent incident, 1/million ton kilometer Safety in production C2 Rate of employees’ death, 1/ten thousand employees C3 Length of railway lines (km) C4 Proportion of continuous welded rail (%) Railway infrastructure C5 Proportion of double-tracking railways (%) C6 Proportion of high-speed railway mileage (%) C7 Number of locomotives Railway equipment C8 Number of passenger cars C9 Number of freight cars C10 Passenger transport intensity (ten thousand passengers/km) C11 Freight transport intensity (ten thousand freight/km) Operation efciency Revenue rate of transporting passengers person-kilometer (yuan/one billion C12 person-kilometer) C13 Revenue rate of transporting freight ton-kilometer (one billion ton-kilometer) C14 Proportion of electrifed railway (%) Green development Comprehensive energy consumption per unit transportation workload (kg/ten C15 thousand kilometers) Journal of Advanced Transportation 5 objective weighting method [21], which can refect the ω � . n (5) amount of information contained by each index through the 􏽐 c relevance of indicators and the confict between indicators [42]. Among them, the variability of the index is charac- terized by the standard deviation, which can refect the size 2.3. Step 3: Establishing the Evaluation Method Based on of the diference in the value of the evaluation object under Relative Entropy Method. As mentioned above, the evalu- the same indicator, and the confict between indicators is ation of railway transportation performance is actually the characterized by the correlation coefcient. Te CRITIC comparison of the evaluation results of multiple railway method is more objective and scientifc [43]. Te steps of the transportation bureaus, by applying the MCDM. Terefore, CRITIC method are as follows: based on an explicitly given weight vector, it is easy to get Step 1: Determining the decision matrix accurate and scientifc evaluation results by establishing an For a fnite set R of m alternatives and a given system of appropriate comprehensive evaluation method. In this study, the weighted relative entropy evaluation method is n indexes, MCDM in its general form can be defned as follows: proposed to analyze railway transportation performance in China. Relative entropy is a basic concept in probability R � r 􏼐 􏼑 (i � 1, 2, · · · , m; j � 1, 2, · · · , n). (1) ij m×n theory and information theory, which is proposed by Kullback and Leibler [45]. Te relative entropy evaluation Step 2: Calculating standardized matrix method combines relative entropy with the TOPSIS method Performing the forward or reverse processing of the [40]. Te method uses relative entropy to measure the relative distance between the evaluated scheme and the ideal decision matrix [44], we get scheme [46], and the relative closeness degree is applied to ij ⎧ ⎪ 􏽱����� ⎪ , identify order relations among all schemes [40, 47, 48]. Te ⎪ 2 􏽐􏼐r 􏼑 ij concrete steps of the weighted relative entropy evaluation method are as follows: r � (2) ij ⎪ 1/r Step 1: Calculating weighted matrix ij 􏽱������� ⎪ ∗ Te weighted matrix R will be normalized by using 􏽐􏼐1/r 􏼑 ij equations (2)–(5), and the weighted matrix can be defned as follows: where r is the positive index and r is the ij ij negative index. ∗ ∗ ∗ R � 􏼐r 􏼑 , r � r ∗ ω . (6) ij i ij ij m×n Step 3: Calculating the correlation coefcient of the index Step 2: Determining the positive and negative ideal Te linear correlation coefcient r between index i solution ij and index j is defned as follows: Te positive and negative ideal solutions can be defned as follows: 􏽐 r − r􏼁 􏼐r − r 􏼑 1 i i i j + ∗ 􏽱�������������������� � ρ � , F � max r , ⎧ ⎨ (3) ij j ij m m (7) 􏽐 r − r 􏽐 r − r 􏼁 􏼐 􏼑 ⎩ − ∗ 1 i i 1 j j F � min r , j ij where ρ represents the correlation coefcient be- ij + − where F and F represents the positive ideal solution j j tween the ith index and the jth index; r and r rep- i j ∗ and negative ideal solution, respectively; max r and ij resent the mean value of the ith index and the jth index, min r represents the maximum and minimum of the ij respectively. jth index. Step 4: Calculating the amount of information covered Step 3: Calculating the remoteness by each index Te relative entropy of remoteness is determined as A measure of the confict created by index j with re- follows: spect to the decision situation defned by the rest of the + + index is described as follows: ⎧ ⎪ F 1 − F ⎪ + + + i i ⎝ ⎠ ⎪ ⎛ ⎞ g � 􏽘 F lg + 1 − F 􏼁 lg , ∗ ∗ j i i ⎪ r 1 − r n ij ij ⎪ i�1 c � σ 􏽘􏼐1 − ρ 􏼑, (4) j j ij (8) i�1 ⎪ ⎪ m − − F 1 − F − − − i i ⎪ ⎛ ⎝ ⎞ ⎠ where σ represents the mean square deviation of the g � 􏽘 F lg + 1 − F 􏼁 lg , ⎩ j i ∗ i ∗ r 1 − r ij ij i�1 jth index; c represents confict created by index j with respect to the decision. where g represents the relative entropy between the Step 5: Calculating the weight of each index jth scheme and positive ideal scheme; g represents the Te index weight value is defned as follows: relative entropy between the jth scheme and negative 6 Journal of Advanced Transportation ideal scheme; and r represents the weighted Judging from the results, it shows that Shanghai Railway ij decision index. Bureau, Zhengzhou Railway Bureau, Taiyuan Railway Bu- reau, Beijing Railway Bureau, and Guangzhou Railway Step 4: Calculating relative closeness Bureau round out the top fve, which shows that the railway Relative closeness is determined as follows: transportation performance of these railway bureaus is well- developed and could drive the development of other railway S � , (9) j + − bureaus. Among them, the railway transportation perfor- g + g j j mance value of Shanghai Railway Bureau has reached 0.53, + − which is far higher than that of other railway bureaus, and where g and g represents the relative entropy with i j this shows that Shanghai Railway Bureau has achieved high- the positive ideal scheme and negative ideal scheme, quality development. Te reasons are as follows: Shanghai respectively. Railway Bureau which is located in the economically de- Step 5: Figuring out the optimal evaluation unit veloped Yangtze River Delta region of China, mainly gov- It is clearly shown that the smaller of the S means a low erns the lines in Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Anhui level of the railway transportation performance, and the provinces; the railway network of Shanghai Railway Bureau bigger of the S means a high level of the railway is the most intensive and perfect, and the undertaken transportation performance. passenger and freight transportation is the busiest in China. On the contrary, Qingzang Railway Bureau, Hohhot Railway 3. Results and Discussion Bureau, Urumqi Railway Bureau, Nanning Railway Bureau, and Wuhan Railway Bureau are the bottom fve, which 3.1. Data. In order to evaluate railway transportation shows that the railway transportation performance of these performance in diferent railway transportation compa- railway bureaus is less developed. Among them, the railway nies in China, the researchers investigate the statistical transportation performance value of Qingzang Railway data of 18 railway bureaus in 2018 published by the China Bureau is the lowest. Te reasons are as follows: Qingzang Railway Corporation [49], and some missing data come Railway Bureau locates on the Qinghai Tibet Plateau which fromChina Statistical Yearbook 2019. Ten, based on the is called the “global ridge,” and the railway scale, railway statistical data of 18 railway transportation bureaus, the equipment quality, and railway operation efciency research normalizes the primitive matrix data and ac- are weak. quires the dimensionless normative matrix by using equation (1). Te standardized matrix is shown in Table 2. According to the defnition of the evaluation indexes, the 3.3.2. Spatial Pattern of Railway Transportation Performance. 15 evaluation indexes are all fxed-value evaluation in- Te railway transportation performance is divided into four dicators. Among them, C1, C2, and C15 are cost evalu- levels, namely, 0–0.01, underdeveloped railway trans- ation indexes, and others are beneft evaluation indexes. portation performance; 0.01–0.20, less developed railway In other words, if C1, C2, and C15 are close to 0, the better transportation performance; 0.20–0.30, relatively developed the performance of the railway bureau is; if the other railway transportation performance; and >0.30, developed evaluation index is close to 1, the higher performance of railway transportation performance. And the evaluation the railway transportation bureau is. results are shown in Figure 3. According to Figure 3, the following are the main spatial 3.2. Calculation of the Value of the Railway Transportation pattern of the railway transportation performance in China: Performance. According to the results of index di- (1) 3 railway bureaus (16.67%) have developed railway mensionless, the research calculates the weight of each index transportation performance; 4 railway bureaus (22.22%) by using equations (2)–(5), and the results are shown in have relatively developed railway transportation perfor- Table 3. From Table 3, we can see that the weight value of C1, mance; 8 railway bureaus (44.44%) have less developed C11, and C13 are larger, and these three indicators have railway transportation performance; 3 railway bureaus a great infuence on the evaluation results. (16.67%) have underdeveloped railway transportation per- By using equations (6)–(9), the performance evaluation formance. (2) Te railway transportation performance results of 18 railway transportation bureaus are shown in shows a pattern of decline from coastal bureaus toward the Table 4. From Table 4, we can fnd that the railway trans- interior of the bureaus, with the highest railway trans- portation performance of the 18 railway transportation portation performance indices in coastal bureaus and the bureaus is diferent and indices range from 0.02 to 0.53. lowest indices in western bureaus and parts of central bu- reaus. (3) Te railway transportation performance is sig- nifcantly higher in central and eastern bureaus than in 3.3. Discussion western bureaus, for example, Shanghai Railway Bureau, 3.3.1. Comparison Evaluation Results of Railway Trans- Zhengzhou Railway Bureau, Taiyuan Railway Bureau, Bei- jing Railway Bureau, and Guangzhou Railway Bureau have portation Performance. According to the evaluation results of railway transportation performance, the performance higher railway transportation performance than other areas of China, which is consistent with China’s economic de- measurement rank of the 18 railway transportation bureaus is shown in Figure 2. velopment pattern. Journal of Advanced Transportation 7 Table 2: Te results of index dimensionless. Ha’erbin Shenyang Beijing Taiyuan Hohhot Zhengzhou Wuhan Xi’an Jinan Shanghai Nanchang Guangzhou Nanning Chengdu Kunming Lanzhou Urumqi Qingzang C1 0.04 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.33 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.73 0.14 0.12 0.09 0.19 0.31 0.35 0.09 0.04 C2 0.34 0.43 0.35 0.22 0.12 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.18 0.36 0.18 0.25 0.14 0.25 0.08 0.17 0.12 0.05 C3 0.26 0.44 0.27 0.14 0.20 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.34 0.26 0.31 0.18 0.32 0.12 0.17 0.20 0.10 C4 0.20 0.24 0.24 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.23 0.25 0.19 0.25 C5 0.16 0.19 0.27 0.29 0.15 0.32 0.35 0.23 0.27 0.28 0.23 0.26 0.19 0.20 0.14 0.24 0.19 0.14 C6 0.12 0.19 0.22 0.11 0.05 0.26 0.23 0.15 0.28 0.36 0.36 0.39 0.29 0.25 0.24 0.18 0.12 0.06 C7 0.22 0.40 0.33 0.23 0.19 0.26 0.20 0.26 0.15 0.29 0.14 0.27 0.16 0.27 0.12 0.27 0.16 0.07 C8 0.27 0.33 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.17 0.48 0.26 0.47 0.14 0.32 0.12 0.11 0.16 0.05 C9 0.26 0.44 0.27 0.14 0.20 0.13 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.34 0.26 0.31 0.18 0.32 0.12 0.17 0.20 0.10 C10 0.11 0.14 0.31 0.14 0.05 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.21 0.53 0.24 0.40 0.16 0.24 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.04 C11 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.84 0.18 0.23 0.08 0.18 0.19 0.10 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.06 C12 0.26 0.18 0.29 0.26 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.22 0.19 0.30 0.20 0.29 0.20 0.30 0.36 0.14 0.16 0.20 C13 0.34 0.20 0.15 0.27 0.37 0.16 0.10 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.13 0.12 0.24 0.14 0.26 0.13 0.34 0.34 C14 0.10 0.17 0.24 0.29 0.11 0.27 0.30 0.27 0.30 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.20 0.28 0.23 0.30 0.15 0.12 C15 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.33 0.30 0.23 0.25 0.16 0.23 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.20 0.16 0.28 0.24 0.18 8 Journal of Advanced Transportation Table 3: Calculation results of the index weight. Index Weight value C1 0.12 C2 0.06 C3 0.05 C4 0.01 C5 0.04 C6 0.07 C7 0.05 C8 0.08 C9 0.06 C10 0.07 C11 0.15 C12 0.05 C13 0.10 C14 0.05 C15 0.04 Table 4: Evaluation results of railway transportation performance. Railway transportation bureau Evaluation value Ha’erbin 0.13 Shenyang 0.15 Beijing 0.25 Taiyuan 0.34 Hohhot 0.06 Zhengzhou 0.34 Wuhan 0.12 Xi’an 0.16 Jinan 0.20 Shanghai 0.53 Nanchang 0.15 Guangzhou 0.22 Nanning 0.11 Chengdu 0.21 Kunming 0.15 Lanzhou 0.16 Urumqi 0.08 Qingzang 0.02 0.60 0.53 0.50 0.40 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.02 0.00 Figure 2: Comparison of performance evaluation results of 18 railway bureaus. Qingzang Hohhot Urumqi Nanning Wuhan Ha’erbin Kunming Nanchang Shenyang Xi’an Lanzhou Jinan Chengdu Guangzhou Beijing Taiyuan Zhengzhou Shanghai Taiyuan Guanghzou Lanzhou Journal of Advanced Transportation 9 Ha’erbin Shenyang Urumqi Hohhot Beijing Jinan Qingzang Zhengzhou Xi’an Shanghai Wuhan Chengdu Nanchang Kunming 0.0-0.1: Underdeveloped Nanning 0.1-0.2: Less underdeveloped 0.2-0.3: Relatively developed >0.3: Developed Figure 3: Te assessment results of 18 railway bureaus. 4. Conclusions Conflicts of Interest Railways have unarguably many advantages, such as higher Te authors declare no confict of interest. safety, less energy consumption, less pollution, and less trafc congestion, compared to other means of transport. Authors’ Contributions Evaluation of the railway transportation performance has L.Z. and S.Q. performed conceptualization; S.Q. curated the a great signifcance for building an efcient and compre- data; L.Z. and Q.C. performed the formal analysis; L.Z. hensive railway transportation system. Terefore, based on acquired funding; L.Z.developed methodology; L.Z. wrote indicators of railway safety, railway infrastructure, railway the original draft; L.Z. and C. Q. reviewed and edited the equipment, operation efciency, and green development, manuscript. this research evaluates the railway transportation perfor- mance in China in 2018, by applying the CRITIC-relative Acknowledgments entropy evaluation method. Te fndings are as follows: (1) In 2018, the railway transportation performance of the 18 Tis research is supported by the Railway Culture Develop- railway transportation bureaus is diferent, among which ment Research Institute (TWK2021003), Advanced Study and Shanghai Railway Bureau is the most developed and Training of Professional Leaders for Higher Vocational Col- Qingzang Railway Bureau is underdeveloped. (2) In 2018, leges in Jiangsu Province (2022GRGDYX034), Jiangsu Railway the railway transportation performance in nearly 40% of Industry Collaborative Innovation Institute (KFJ2213), and the bureaus of China is ideal. (3) In 2018, the railway High-Speed Railway Safety Center (GTAQ202206). transportation performance is signifcantly higher in central and eastern bureaus than in western bureaus, which References is consistent with China’s economic development pattern. Te results of this research could be used to improve the [1] S. Liu, T. Zhang, and R. Wang, “Chinese railways develop- sustainability of the railway transportation bureau in ment level research based on entropy,” Frontiers in Artifcial China. Intelligence and Applications, vol. 314, pp. 305–313, 2019. [2] X. Guo and W. Xu, “Research on evaluation of the devel- opment level of regional HSR networks,” Railway Transport Data Availability and Economy, vol. 43, no. 10, p. 8, 2021. [3] T. Zheng, “Research on development of China’s high-speed (1) Te statistical data of 18 railway transportation bu- railway and economy,” Journal of the China Railway Society, reaus in 2018 published by the China Railway Corpora- vol. 42, no. 7, p. 8, 2020. tion; (2) company portals of the railway transportation [4] J. Jin, “Spatio-temporal coupling relations between the ac- bureaus; (3) China Statistical Yearbook 2019. cessibility of high-speed railway and the urban driving foreces 10 Journal of Advanced Transportation in China,” Geography and Geo-Information Science, vol. 35, Railway Transport and Economy, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 16–24, pp. 2019–2023, 2021. 2021. [5] S. Stoilova, N. Munier, M. Kendra, and T Skrucany, “Multi- [23] J. Zheng, Y. Wang, and S. Chen, “Dynamic case retrieval criteria evaluation of railway network performance in method with subjective preferences and objective information countries of the TEN-T orient–east med corridor,” Sustain- for emergency decision making,” IEEE/CAA Journal of ability, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 1482, 2020. Automatica Sinica, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 749–757, 2018. [6] L. Dong, F. Shi, and G. Zhang, “Analysis of spatiotemporal [24] J. Ma, Z. P. Fan, and L. H. Huang, “A subjective and objective efciency and fairness of railway passenger transport network integrated approach to determine attribute weights,” Euro- pean Journal of Operational Research, vol. 112, no. 2, based on space syntax: a case study of Yangtze River Delta,” Planning and Construction, vol. 36, no. 10, p. 8, 2021. pp. 397–404, 1999. [25] Y. Wang, Z. Guo, and G. Wang, “Research on high-speed [7] Z. Yan, X. Wang, W. Qin, and Y. Zhao, “Valuation and evolution law of sustainable railway transport development,” railway operation safety evaluation index,” Railway Quality Journal of Railway Science and Engineering, vol. 17, no. 12, Control, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 32–37, 2021. p. 8, 2020. [26] L. Duckstein and M. Gershon, “Multicriterion analysis of [8] L. Li, “Connotation and evaluation index system for building a vegetation management problem using ELECTRE II,” China’s strength in transportation,” Journal of Beijing Jiaotong Applied Mathematical Modelling, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 254–261, University, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 8, 2020. 1983. [27] G. Tian, H. Zhang, Y. Feng et al., “Operation patterns analysis [9] J. Zhou and P. Xu, “Evaluation index system of transportation powers,” Journal of Transport Management Institute Ministry of automotive components remanufacturing industry devel- of Transport, vol. 28, no. 4, p. 6, 2018. opment in China,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 164, [10] Y. Yang, K. He, Y.-peng Wang, Zz Yuan, Yh Yin, and Mz Guo, pp. 1363–1375, 2017. “Identifcation of dynamic trafc crash risk for cross-area [28] Mo Hong, J. Wang, X. Li, and Z. Wu, “Linguistic dynamic freeways based on statistical and machine learning methods,” modeling and analysis of psychological health state using Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, vol. 595, interval type-2 fuzzy sets,” IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin.vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 366–373, 2015. Article ID 127083, 2022. [11] R. V. Rao and B. K. Patel, “A subjective and objective in- [29] Y. Wang, J. Guo, and L. Li, “Condition evaluation of subgrade in highway operation period based on analytical hierarchy tegrated multiple attribute decision making method for material selection,” Materials & Design, vol. 31, no. 10, process,” Journal of South China University of Technology, pp. 4738–4747, 2010. vol. 45, no. 6, pp. 37–43, 2017. [12] D. Sun, Y. Jia, L. Qin, Y. Yang, and J. Zhang, “A variance [30] J. Li, “Appraisal of humanization level of municipal trans- maximization based weight optimization method for railway portation based on analytic hierarchy process,” Journal of transportation safety performance measurement,” Sustain- Wuhan University of Technology, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 175–178, ability, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 2903, 2018. 2007. [13] X. Wang, Evolution and Classifcation Research on Evaluation [31] W. Tang and Z. Han, “A comprehensive evaluation method of Method, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, City, 2009. fnancial position based on information entropy,” Journal of Nanjing University of Science and Technology, vol. 25, no. 6, [14] X. Zhang and N. He, “Study on classifcation and applicability of comprehensive evaluation methods,” Statistics & Decisions, pp. 650–653, 2001. [32] Z. Zhou and B. Ma, “Optimal response scheme based on vol. 38, no. 6, 2022. [15] Q. Song, X. Wang, and T. Hu, “Review of multiple attribute entropy method and grey relational decision,” Statistics & evaluation method and it’s development,” Journal OF De- Decisions, vol. 476, no. 8, pp. 46–49, 2017. cision Making and Decision Support Systems, no. 4, pp. 130– [33] P. Zhang, Y. Lu, and Y. Zhao, “Based on the fuzzy com- 140, 1997. prehensive evaluation method of highway passenger sat- [16] H. A. Linstone and M. Turof, Te Delphi Method: Techniques isfacion research,” Technology & Economy in Areas of and Applications, Addison-Wesley, Boston, 1975. Communications, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 21–24, 2014. [17] Z. Guo, X. Shang, and H. Li, “AHP-based safety assessment [34] C. Ma and S. Liming, “Application of matter element analysis model for rail transit system,” China Railway Science, vol. 32, method in evaluation of rail transit operation performance,” Journal of Dalian Jiaotong University, vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 12–16, pp. 123–125, 2011. [18] Y. Yang and Z. Yuan, “Exploring trafc crash occurrence 2019. [35] L. Zhou and Li Tang, “Discussion on evaluation of railway mechanism towards cross-area freeways via an improved data mining approach,” Journal of Transportation Engineering, freight service quality based on grey comprehensive evalua- Part A: Systems, vol. 148, pp. 2473–2907, 2022. tion method,” Railway Transport and Economy, vol. 39, no. 12, [19] S. Chu and C. Lai, “Evaluation of energy saving and emission pp. 47–53, 2021. reduction of Anhui based on variance coefcient approach,” [36] H. Zhou, “Research on logistics service provider selection based on entropy weight and cosine decision model,” Journal China Population Resources & Environment, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 512–516, 2011. of Chifeng University, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 98–101, 2016. [37] Y. Wang, Y. Guo, and Z. Tian, “Evaluation on the importance [20] Z. Xu, “Two variance maximization methods for multi at- tribute decision making,” J. Eng. Manag.vol. 15, no. 2, of highway hub nodes in urban agglomeration based on pp. 11–13, 2001. TOPSIS model,” Highways, vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 141–145, 2019. [21] D. Diakoulaki, G. Mavrotas, and L. Papayannakis, “De- [38] L. Zhang and Y. Zhang, “Research on rural human resource termining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: the capacity evaluation based on improved catastrophe pro- CRITIC method,” Computers & Operations Research, vol. 22, gression method,” Journal of Dalian University of Technolgy, no. 7, pp. 763–770, 1995. vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 70–76, 2016. [22] Z. Pan and F. Han, “Study of xinjiang railway network ex- [39] Y. Yang, Z. Yuan, J. Chen, and M. Guo, “Assessment of pansion pattern based on entropy grey relational method,” osculating value method based on entropy weight to Journal of Advanced Transportation 11 transportation energy conservation and emission reduction,” Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 2413–2423, 2017. [40] M. Zhao, W. Qiu, and B. Liu, “Relative entropy evaluation method for multiple attribute decision making,” Control and Decision, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 1098–1100+1104, 2010. [41] Y. Yang and K. Wang, “Predicting freeway trafc crash se- verity using XGBoost-bayesian network model with consid- eration of features interaction,” Journal of Advanced Transportation, vol. 2022, Article ID 4257865, 2022. [42] S. Li, Z. Kuang, Y. Xiao, Z. Qiao, and W. Yang, “Rockburst tendency prediction based on an integrating method of combination weighting and matter-element extension theory: a case study in the Bayu Tunnel of the Sichuan-Tibet Railway,” Engineering Geology, vol. 308, Article ID 106796, 2022. [43] H. Zhao and J. Li, “Grading evaluation of power quality based on CRITIC and improved Grey-TOPSIS,” Power System Protection and Control, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 1–8, 2022. [44] D. Yao, “Bidding decision of construction engineering pro- jects based on relative entropy ranking,” Journal of Quanti- tative Economics, vol. 32, no. 04, pp. 106–110, 2015. [45] S. Kullback and R. A. Leibler, “On information and suf- ciency,” Te Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 79–86, 1951. [46] T. M. Cover and A. Tomas Joy, Elements of Information Teory, John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA, 2006. [47] L. Fei and Y. Deng, “A new method to identify infuential nodes based on relative entropy,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, vol. 104, pp. 257–267, 2017. [48] Y. He, J. Xia, and Z. Wang, “Application of relative entropy ranking in bidding decision of water conservancy project,” Journal of Mathematics in Practice and Teory, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 61–67, 2015. [49] China Railway Press, China Railway Yearbook 2018, China Railway Press, Beijing, China, 2019.

Journal

Journal of Advanced Transportation – Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Published: Mar 7, 2023

There are no references for this article.