Septiana Widi Astuti, Muhammad Adib Kurniawan, Adya Aghastya


Introduction: The National Railway Master Plan (RIPNAS), dated 2018, mentions that the railway network size and railway service capacity for using trains as the main means of transportation can be increased by reactivating non-operational routes and improving the condition of the existing routes. Methods: In our study, we propose the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) method to determine the best option for the reactivated Madiun–Dopolo trace route in East Java, Indonesia. The data obtained were derived from questionnaires filled in by experts in the field. The model used six main criteria: land use, technical aspects, transportation node integration, social insecurity, disaster factors, and funding. Result and Discussion: The analysis reveals that the predominant route selection criterion chosen by the respondents was the Land Use (with a score of 0.25). The least significant Madiun–Dopolo route selection criterion was the Disaster Factors (0.07). Based on the results of weighting the criteria and aggregating the respondent alternatives, the trace route most commonly chosen by the respondents was the Alternative Trace Route (Trace Route 2), with a score of 0.698, while the Existing Trace Route (Trace Route 1) had a score of 0.302. The Alternative Trace Route is longer than the Existing Trace Route, but it will mostly pass through farming regions, which is assumed to create less social conflicts than in the case of Trace Route 1. This also automatically means that Trace Route 2 will need fewer funds in land acquisition.


Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process, route, railway.

Full Text:



Aven, T. and Renn, O. (2009). On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp. 1–11. DOI: 10.1080/13669870802488883.

Buckley, J. J. (1985). Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol. 17, Issue 3, pp. 233–247. DOI: 10.1016/0165–0114(85)90090–9.

Chang, D.-Y. (1996). Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 95, Issue 3, pp. 649–655. DOI: 10.1016/0377–2217(95)00300–2.

Chasanah, F. and Putro, A. A. H. (2018). Studi Alternatif Pengembangan Trase Jalur Kereta Api DAOP VI Yogyakarta Menuju NIYA Kulon Progo. Jurnal Teknologi Rekayasa, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 79–88. DOI: 10.31544/jtera.v3.i1.2018.79–88.

Deng, H. (1999). Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 215–231. DOI: 10.1016/S0888–613X(99)00025–0.

Emrouznejad, A. and Ho, W. (2018). Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 430 p.

Guarte, J. M. and Barrios, E. B. (2006). Estimation under purposive sampling, Communications in Statistics — Simulation and Computation, Vol. 35, Issue 2, pp. 277–284. DOI: 10.1080/03610910600591610.

Mohajeri, N. and Amin, G. R. (2010). Railway station site selection using analytical hierarchy process and data envelopment analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 59, Issue 1, pp. 107–114. DOI: 10.1016/j.cie.2010.03.006.

Palayukan, R. O. and Adisasmita, S. A. (2018). Analisis Pemilihan Trase Jalur Kereta Api (Studi Kasus : Tanah Grogot — Batulicin – Pelaihari), pp. 146–154.

Peetawan, W. and Suthiwartnarueput, K. (2018). Identifying factors affecting the success of rail infrastructure development projects contributing to a logistics platform: A Thailand case study. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 39, Issue 2, pp. 320–327. DOI: 10.1016/j.kjss.2018.05.002.

Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill, 287 p.

Saaty, T. L. (2010). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 83–98. DOI: 10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.

Saaty, T. L. and Vargas, L. G. (2012). Models, methods, concepts & applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. 2nd edition. London : Springer, 346 p.

Tzeng, G.-H. and Huang, J.-J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making. Methods and applications. New York: CRC Press, 352 p.

Van Laarhoven, P.J.M. and Pedrycz, W. (1983). A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Sets snd Systems, Vol. 11, Issues 1–3, pp. 229–241. DOI: 10.1016/S0165–0114(83)80082–7.

Yang, J. and Kuang, X. (2019). Social risk assessment of engineering project based on ordered voting model. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 688, Issue 5, article 055033. DOI: 10.1088/1757–899X/688/5/055033.

Yu, J. and Liu, Y. (2012). Prioritizing highway safety improvement projects: A multi-criteria model and case study with SafetyAnalyst. Safety Science, Vol. 50, Issue 4, pp. 1085–1092. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.11.018.

Zhang, X. and Liu, P. (2010). Method for aggregating triangular fuzzy intuitionistic fuzzy information and its application to decision making. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 16, Issue 2, pp. 280–290. DOI: 10.3846/tede.2010.18.



  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN: 2500-0055