# 159

Dear Havraz Khedhir Younis Al-Zibaree, Mine Konur

I have read your article:

Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchal Process for Sustainable Public Transport System

My comments:

1- In the abstract you say “The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a well-established methodology for tackling complex multi-criteria decision problems in practical contexts”

Yes, it is a well-established methodology but not for tackling complex MCDM problems. It is OK for trivial scenarios, simply because it was not designed to deal with complex issues. For starters, its creator, Saaty established that it cannot be using with fuzzy, because AHP is already fuzzy.

2-“Its computational efficiency streamlines the decision-making process, providing a powerful tool for evaluating public bus transport service”

This is inexact, you cannot evaluate transportation based on intuitions, you need to use a normative procedure but not a descriptive one as AHP is, it is not what you wish but what should be.

3- Page 2 “This approach was designed to navigate the intricacies of industrial performance evaluation, offering a reliable method for finding optimal solutions”

It is very hard for me to understand how using fuzzy you can find optimal solutions, not for the fuzzy itself, an excellent procedure, but if you use invented or wished values from AHP, the fuzzy will deliver an average of those invented values, but they are not real; they are only in the DM’s mind, and tomorrow they could be different.; remember that ‘Garbage in, garbage out’.

By the way, there are not optimal solutions in MCDM whatever the method used, because you cannot optimize at the same tome two opposite ideas. What you can do is to find a balance, an equilibrium, which is what all MCDM methods do.

4- “Their innovative use of Pareto efficiency led to more trustworthy and efficient results”

I assume that you are talking in determining the best combination using a Pareto efficiency curve, using arbitrary data. Strange, indeed.

5- In page 7 Table 2, I do not think that it is representative of quality of service. Where is for instance ‘Comfort on buses’ including for example: Information panels for stops, inside the buses, air conditioning and heating, space between seats, reading material, no smoking signs, cleanliness, etc.?

Or where is ‘Accessibility”, as low floor buses, access ramps, space for wheel chairs and safety belts, dedicated space for old people, etc.?

‘Environment’, with buses with exhaust gases at roof level, electric bases, buses using liquid gas, trolley buses, etc.

6- Also, in your Fig1, did you realize that there is a direct relationship between two sub criteria ‘waiting time ’under’ speed’, and’ frequency’ under ‘time availability’. Nothing wrong with that, only that transversal relationships are not allowed in AHP.

What about age of buses?

It appears that Fig 1 not even remotely represents reality

7- In page 7 “The hierarchical structure for evaluating the criteria provides a clear understanding of their relative importance in the decision-making process.”

From the above, do you think that this sentence is true?

8- Page 7 “At the first level, the "Reliability" criterion was identified as the most significant factor that needs improvement”

I agree that reliability is very important, then, why you do not define it?

9- What does this mean: “Limited time of use”

These are my comments, I hope they can be of help

Nolberto Munier