Evaluation of the location of existing and planned intercity bus terminals in Istanbul using a multi-criteria analysis

D. Akn1* and D. Kara2

1

Department of City and Regional Planning, Yildiz Technical University, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey 2 Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality, Bimtas, Istanbul, Turkey

*Corresponding author: E-mail: dakin@yildiz.edu.tr, Tel +90 212 383 2592, Fax: +90 212 261 0549

Abstract In this paper, locations of Istanbuls intercity bus terminals proposed by the 2023 Long-Range Landuse Plan (LRLUP) and the 2023 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) of Istanbul are examined based on the criteria that affect locations of the bus terminals by offering solutions to overcome the accessibility and suitability problems of the existing ones within the environment they are located. In this context, a multi-criteria analysis is performed to evaluate the existing and planned intercity bus terminals in Istanbul based on their specific location characteristics defined. The criteria used in the analysis are location in the region, accessibility by highway and transit modes, size and the surrounding landuse characteristics. Based on the criteria used, a score for each terminal location is calculated and the existing and planned terminals are ranked based on the score. All existing and planned intercity bus terminals are assigned a score for the analysis year (2010) and the future plan year (2023). As the total score, the two are added. Based on the analysis results, we defined four score categories: the most proper locations with 75 points and over (Pendik and Ataehir terminals in the Anatolian side, and Silivri, Selimpasa, Sefaky and Baheehir in the European side of the city), secondary proper locations with points between 50 and 75 points (Imes in the Anatolian side, and Eyp and Esenler in the European side), the locations with scores between 25 and 50 points (Kavack in the Anatolian side), and last category included locations with scores less than 25 (Harem, the existing terminal in the Anatolian side of the city). In conclusion, the locations in the first category are considered for planning new intercity terminals in the first place.
Keywords: Intercity bus terminals; location preference criteria; accessibility; transportation network, multicriteria analysis; Istanbul.

1. INTRODUCTION Transportation systems change in types, characteristics and capacity depending on the transportation demand by compulsory as well as social and cultural activities of the society. Thus, they show a dynamic nature due to the fact that they need improvements in order to meet the mobility and accessibility needs of the community. In developing cities with rapid urbanization, industrialization and population increase, serious mobility and accessibility problems occur because of the lack of proper planning and planned transportation investments towards achieving effective solutions for defined transportation problems. Considering generally one third to one quarter of the urban land consumed by roads in urbanized areas, it is obvious how important determining urban activity centers and service locations is in landuse planning with coordination by transportation planning. Land use determines the volume, format, feature and type of the transportation demand [1]. In this sense, due to the dynamic nature of metropolitan cities, interaction of transportation and land use should not ever be ignored for sustainable development. Factors that influence transportation network and the choice of locations for transportation hubs can be named environmental factors, socio-economic conditions, accessibility measures, urban land value or rent, availability of land and size, cost of development, urban policies, type of service, and the scale [2].

Istanbul has become a center of attraction with its location and its commercial, economic, financial, cultural, educational and social aspects in the country. Activities carried out in Istanbul constitute more than one-third of the activities carried out in the country. On the other hand, Istanbul is the main center in Turkey's international transport links with outside the world. In this respect, Istanbuls intercity, regional and international transportation links must be strong and its transportation hubs must be accessible that allow facilitated external connections, and they, in turn, enrich economical activities that have a direct relationship with its transportation capacity. Istanbuls existing bus terminals (Harem in the Anatolian side and Esenler in the European side) are jammed in the city center by time and the trips made to reach to these points are intensive in the metropolitan area. Thus, this draws a greater attention to a need of the development of intercity bus terminal system, i.e., in addition to one large terminal, several smaller ones need to be developed on both sides of the city. This study made possible to evaluate Istanbuls existing and planned intercity bus terminals via a multi-criteria analysis. 2. METHODOLOGY Evaluation of the location of the bus terminals using the multicriteria analysis are made both for the analysis year (2010) and the future plan year (2023). Main criteria used for the evaluation are: location, accessibility, possibility for expansion, and characteristics of the surrounding environment. Steps of the methodology are as follows [3]: 1. Four main criteria and ten subcriteria are determined to evaluate the location of the bus terminals (Table 1). Table 1. Main criteria in the analysis of bus terminals
Main criteria I. Location Subcriteria 1. Location in the urban area 2. Population density 3. Land values 4. Proximity to main artery roads 5. Proximity to urban rail stations 6. Proximity to other transport centers (airport, seaport, regional, national/international railway station) 7. Access time by highway and transport modes 8. Availability of land for expansion 9. Geological conditions of the surrounding area 10. Land use structure of the surrounding area

II. Accessibility

III. Size of the area for expansion IV. Characteristics of the surrounding environment

2. Spatial analysis maps are created using the ten subcriteria for evaluating the locations of the existing and planned bus terminals for the analysis year (2010) and the year of 2023, separately. 3. In order to determine weights of the criteria, an expert survey was conducted with 107 professionals in the academia as well in government offices (city and regional planners, transportation planners, transportation and traffic engineers). 4. Weights and the values of the criteria (Table 2) are multiplied to obtain the total scores for the bus terminal areas.

5. Locations of the eleven bus terminals are evaluated by multi-criteria analysis and they are ranked by the scores resulted from the analysis. 2.1 Scoring location criteria 2.1.1. Evaluation for the analysis year (2010) In order to perform the analysis, the first step is to pinpoint the location of the eleven bus terminals proposed by the 2023 Long-Range Landuse Plan (LRLUP) and the 2023 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) of Istanbul (Figure 1) in spatial analysis maps. Then, to ease the multi-criteria evaluation analysis maps are divided into 292 cells of 5x5 km (Figure 1). This grid system helps to ease the analysis. If an analysis criterion in related maps (Figure 2) indicates more than one property in one cell, it is considered as the dominating property (rated in percentage) for that cell. Then, the location criteria are rated as poor (-1), medium (0) and good (1) (Table 2) [3]. Table 1. Scores of the location criteria [3]
No. Subcriteria 1 Location in the urban area Unit CBD Urban Suburban Rural Outer rural Low (<100 pers./ha) Mid (101-300 pers./ha) High (>300 pers./ha) Low (<50 TL/m)1 Mid (51-150 TL/m) High (>150 TL/m) 0-30 min. 31-60 min. 61-90 min. >90 min. 0-30 min. 31-60 min. 61-90 min. >90 min. Near (inside the cell) Far (outside the cell) Near (inside the cell) Far (outside the cell) Near (inside the cell) Far (outside the cell) Yes / No Can be settled with low cost Can be settled with high cost Settlement prohibited Proper Improper Score -1 -1 1 0 -1 1 0 -1 1 0 -1 0/-1 0 1 1 0/-1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1/0 1 0 -1 1 0

Population density

Land values

Highway access time

Public transit access time

5 6 7 8 9

Proximity to rail stations Proximity to main road interchanges Proximity to other transport centers Availability of land for expansion The geological conditions of the surrounding area Land use structure of the surrounding environment

10

TL: Unit of Turkish curency (Turkish Lira).

Figure 1. Locations of the Istanbuls existing and planned bus terminals in the grid system [4], [5]
a) Locations of Istanbuls bus terminals in urban area classification [6] b) Locations of Istanbuls bus terminals in land value classification [7]

c) Locations of Istanbuls bus terminals in urban density classification [7] d) Proximity of Istanbuls bus terminals to major transportation centers and interchanges [5]

e) Regional highway access time to Esenler bus terminal in minutes [8] f) Regional highway access time to Harem bus terminal in minutes [8]

g) Regional transit access time to Esenler bus terminal in minutes [8]

h) Regional transit access time to Harem bus terminal in minutes [8]

i) Geological structure analysis surrounding Istanbuls bus terminals [9] j) Landuse structure analysis surrounding Istanbuls bus terminals [10]

Figure 2. Spatial analysis maps for the analysis year, 2010. 2.1.2. Evaluation for the future plan year (2023) When the 2023 population accessing the existing and planned bus terminals by highway transport up to 60 minutes is evaluated to determine whether the location of the intercity bus terminal is chosen rightfully, Esenler (2,458,253 pop., 14.28%), Sefaky (2,269,798 pop., 13.18%) and Eyp (2,166,896 pop., 12.59%) are the ones with highest population accessibility. The ranking is very similar with respect to accessing by public transport; Eyp (5,344,606 pop., 31.04%), Esenler (5,190,514 pop., 30.15%) and Sefaky (4,724,138 pop., 27.44%) (Table 3) [3]. Table 3. The 2023 population within the areas up to 60 minutes access time-distance to the bus terminals [3]
Bus Terminals Silivri Selimpaa Baheehir Sefaky Eyp ESENLER* Highway access Rank Population % 7 1,346,288 7.82 5 1,452,876 8.44 8 882,034 5.12 2 2,269,798 13.18 3 2,166,896 12.59 1 2,458,253 14.28 Public transit access Population % 1,248,929 7.25 1,400,963 8.14 3,353,009 19.47 4,724,138 27.44 5,344,606 31.04 5,190,514 30.15 Rank 10 8 5 3 1 2

6 7 HAREM* 1,451,550 8.43 2,613,807 15.18 9 11 Kavack 162,599 0.94 260,420 1.51 4 4 Ataehir 1,798,920 10.45 3,971,265 23.07 10 6 Imes 64,000 0.37 3,297,457 19.15 11 8 Pendik 51,615 0.30 2,418,150 14.05 17,217,054 Projected population in 2023 *Existing bus terminals, Planned terminals in the European side, Planned terminals in the Anatolian side.

In Table 4, the scores (poor: -1 medium: 0, and good: 1) based on the spatial analysis presented in Figures 2 and 3 for Istanbuls bus terminals can be seen [3].

a) Proximity of Istanbuls bus terminals to the interchanges/terminals of major highway transportation systems in 2023 [5] b) Regional highway access time to Esenler bus terminal in minutes [8] c) Regional highway access time to Harem bus terminal in minutes [8]

d) Regional transit access time to Esenler bus terminal in minutes [8]

e) Regional transit access time to Harem bus terminal in minutes [8]

Figure 3. Spatial analysis maps for the future plan year, 2023.

Table 4. Scores of the location criteria for existing and planned bus terminals [3]
Location criteria Silivri European side bus terminals Selimpaa Baheehir Eyp Sefaky Anatolian side bus terminals Kavack Ataehir Pendik ESENLER* HAREM* Imes -1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

Location in the urban area 0 0 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 Population density 1 1 1 0 1 -1 0 1 1 Land value 0 1 -1 0 1 0 -1 1 0 Proximity to highway interchanges 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 Proximity to rail stations 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 Proximity to other transport centers 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Highway access time 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 Public transit access time 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 Availability for expansion 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 Geological cond. of surrounding area 1 1 -1 0 0 0 1 0 1 Land use structure of surrounding area 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 Proximity to 2023 rail stations 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 Proximity to other 2023 transport centers 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 % of 2023 pop. access. up to 60 min by highway 7.82 8.44 5.12 13.18 12.59 14.28 8.43 0.94 10.45 % of 2023 pop. access. up to 60 min by public transit 7.25 8.14 19.47 27.44 31.04 30.15 15.18 1.51 23.07 *Existing bus terminals, Planned terminals in the European side, Planned terminals in the Anatolian side.

0 0 1 1

1 1 1 1

1 1

1 1

0.37

0.30

19.15

14.05

2.2 Expert survey The expert survey was carried out through the internet via surveymonkey.com from 8th to 30th July 2012 with 107 qualified people (city planners, transportation planners, transportation engineers, traffic engineer, and so on) who have at least 5 years experience, work in the public and/or private sector and who are the among academic staff of major universities with urban planning and civil engineering departments in the cities of Istanbul and Ankara [3]. A multiple-choice question (required to answer) is asked in order to determine and assign the weights to the ten location criteria scoring from zero to 10. According to the answers, large majority of the interviewed experts (65 %) are urban planners. If a generalization is made over the expertise of the people, 47% of the participants work in transportation planning and engineering [3].

Participants were asked to rank and grade 10 criteria which might influence the location of the bus terminals. Accordingly, when average weight of the criteria derived from the survey in Table 5 is analyzed, the criteria of ''proximity to rail systems'' are seen as the most important criteria with 9.09 points. As a result of the evaluation of the data, average weights that the criteria get from the experts are listed in the order of importance as follows [3]: Table 5. Weights of the criteria determined based on the expert survey [3]
Location criteria 1) Proximity to rail stations 2) Proximity to the highway interchanges 3) Location in the urban area 4) Access time by highway and transit modes 5) Proximity to other transport centers 6) The availability for expansion 7) Land use structure of the surrounding area 8) The geological conditions of the surrounding area 9) Population density 10) Land value 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.9 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.9 0 0 1 0.9 2 1.9 4 3.7 6 5.6 3 2.8 12 11.2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.9 2 1.9 3 2.8 6 5.6 6 5.6 3 2.8 9 8.4 3 4 5 6 7 Scoring and percentages 0 1 1 3 6 0 0.9 0.9 2.8 5.6 0 1 4 1 8 0 0.9 3.7 0.9 7.5 0 2 5 3 6 0 1.9 4.7 2.8 5.6 0 1 2 5 10 0 0 0 8 7.5 7 6.5 7 6.5 7 6.5 6 5.6 0.9 1 0.9 5 4.7 6 5.6 8 7.5 9 8.4 9 8.4 1.9 6 5.6 7 6.5 14 13.1 13 4.7 6 5.6 7 6.5 4 3.7 12 8 9 10 13 30 53 12.1 28 49.5 17 32 44 15.9 29.9 41.1 15 22 53 14 20.6 49.5 19 29 40 Mean score 9.09 8.88 8.80 8.68 8.30 7.14 6.55 6.45 6.37 5.27

9.3 17.8 27.1 37.4 12 20 21 38 11.2 18.7 19.6 35.5 21 15 22 17 19.6 14 20.6 15.9 19 21 15 11 17.8 19.6 7 14 14 19 10.3 15 14 9 8.4 4 3.7

12.1 11.2 6.5 13.1 17.8 20 15 11 11 19 18.7 14 10.3 10.3 17.8 22 12 8 14 10 20.6 11.2 7.5 13.1 9.3

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Results of the multi-criteria analysis Scores of the location criteria for the analysis year (2010) and the future plan year (2023) in Table 4 and average weights of the location criteria obtained from the results of the survey in Table 5 are multiplied. Thus, the total scores to rank the existing and planned location of bus terminals are obtained (Table 6) [3]. Table 6. Total scores calculated for existing and planned bus terminal locations [3]
Location criteria Location in the urban area Population density Land values Proximity to main artery roads Proximity to rail stations Proximity to other transport centres Highway access time Public transit access time Silivri 0 6.37 0 8.88 0 0 8.68 8.68 European side of bus terminals Selimpaa Baheehir Sefaky Eyp 0 6.37 5.27 8.88 0 0 8.68 8.68 8.80 6.37 -5.27 8.88 0 0 8.68 8.68 -8.80 0 0 8.88 9.09 8.30 0 0 -8.80 6.37 5.27 8.88 0 0 0 8.68 ESENLER * -8.80 -6.37 0 8.88 9.09 0 0 0 Anatolian side of bus terminals Kavack Ataehir Imes Pendik HAREM* -8.80 0 -5.27 0 0 8.30 0 0 -8.80 6.37 5.27 8.88 0 0 8.68 8.68 -8.80 6.37 0 8.88 0 0 0 8.68 -8.80 0 5.27 8.88 0 0 0 8.68 8.80 6.37 5.27 0 0 8.30 8.68 8.68

31.00 30.15 15.18 1.51 71.1 Total 76.13 83.70 77.08 82.62 0 53.78 24.28 38.68 *Existing bus terminals, Planned terminals in the European side Planned terminals in the Anatolian side.

The availability for expansion The geological conditions of the surrounding area Land use structure of surroundings 2023-Proximity to rail stations 2023-Proximity to other transport centers 2023-% of pop. access up to 60 min by highway modes 2023-% of pop. access up to 60 min by transit

7.14 6.45 6.55 0 8.30 7.82 7.25

7.14 6.45 6.55 9.09 0 8.44 8.14

7.14 -6.45 6.55 9.09 0 5.12 19.47

7.14 0 0 9.09 8.30 13.18 27.44

7.14 0 0 0 0 12.6

0 0 6.55 0 0 14.28

0 6.45 0 0 0 8.43

7.14 0 0 0 0 0.94

7.14 6.45 6.55 9.09 0 10.45 23.07 77.88

7.14 6.45 6.55 9.09 0 0.37 19.1 5 62.8 0

7.14 6.45 6.55 9.09 0 0.30 14.05 89.70

3.2 Discussion of the results Total scores for existing and planned bus terminal areas are classified into four categories out of 100 points (1st=75-100 p., 2nd=50-75 p., 3rd=25-50 p., 4th=0-25 p.). Accordingly the most proper locations are deemed to be ones with the points between 100 and 75, and the secondary proper locations are with the points between 75 and 50. The locations with the points less than 50 are judged to be not proper locations for developments of bus terminals. Accordingly, the bus terminal location that gets the highest point is Pendik (89.70) followed by Selimpaa (83.70), Sefaky (82.62), Ataehir (77.88), Baheehir (77.08) and Silivri (76.13) are in the first category. Considering the decisions of the 2023 Long-range Landuse Plan (LRLUP) of Istanbul, a number of significant urban development projects in these areas are planned. Therefore, planning new bus terminals in these locations will be needed for the plan year. Our calculations clearly support the locations of these planned bus terminals. Then, respectively Eyp (71.17), Imes (62.80) and Esenler (53.77) bus terminal locations are in the second category. When we examine these areas, Esenler is one of the two existing bus terminals and has a rail connection via Aksaray to Airport (M-1) metro line. Thus, the location has a high potential as a bus terminal with its connection to the rail system and the Atatrk Airport in the European side. Although Ataehir, a planned bus terminal location in the 2023 LRLUP of Istanbul, is very close to Imes bus terminal (both included in the 2nd category), the area is already planned as a financial center which will compose the Central Bank of Turkey as well as the headquarters of other public banks. Thus, it is thought that the traffic created by a new bus terminal in Atasehir will increase congestion problem in terms of already planned urban and traffic activity in the area. Therefore, instead of planning a new bus terminal in Atasehir, Imes proposed by the 2023 Transport Master Plan (TMP) is seen as a better alternative and a more reasonable decision due to the projected congestion in the 2023 LRLUP. In this case, by taking this situation into account, it can be said that Imes bus terminal location must be investigated as a primary area in terms of micro conditions. Another terminal in the second category in the European side, Eyp as a planned bus terminal area can serve a vast majority of the population (in the 1 st rank by % of pop. up to 60 min. by transit). Therefore, a project of a new bus terminal in Alibeyky is planned to be realized in May 2013 by ISPARK (Parking Management Company of the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality). Kavack (38.68) is in the third category, and Harem Bus Terminal (24.28) takes place in the fourth category. In our multi-criteria analysis evaluation, bus terminal areas in the 3rd and 4th category are thought not to be included in Istanbuls future bus terminal system. Accordingly, Kavack, planned bus terminal location with a score lower than 50 (34.68) in the 3rd category, should not be involved in the system by considering the fact that it may trigger new settlements with high density in

Beykoz district located in the northern part of the city in the Anatolian side. In the last category, Harem Bus Terminal (24.29) is found appropriate to remove from the system for the reasons that its service area is quite small and it is located in an area with no possibility of improvements. Harem Bus Terminal is insufficient for the metropolis, besides it causes significant congestion problems in the place where it is located. Harem Bus Terminal is now located in the center of the city and lost its significance because of the differentiation in the direction of urban development and the introduction of ring road for the intercity transportation of Istanbul. In urban scale, especially in the Anatolian side of the city, a new central bus terminal area is needed and that can be Ataehir or Imes based on our analysis. 4. CONCLUSIONS In this paper, we evaluated the locations of Istanbuls intercity bus terminals proposed by the 2023 Long-Term Landuse Plan (LRLUP) and the 2023 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) of Istanbul based on the criteria that affect locations of the bus terminals by offering solutions to overcome the accessibility and suitability problems of the existing ones within the environment they are located. Out of nine planned intercity bus terminals, our analysis found six of them highly feasible, two of them moderately feasible, and one of them infeasible. Esenler, one of the existing terminal in the European side, got a score over 50, but the one in the Anatolian side, Harem, resulted a poor score (24.28). This indicates that it needs to be removed from its current place to either Ataehir (proposed by the 2023 LRLUP) or Imes (proposed by the 2023 TMP) based on the score of the new proposed locations. Main conclusions that can be drawn from our study are as follows; It is proved that the criteria used to evaluate locations of urban developments such as intercity transportation hubs can be assessed by analytical methods, Proximity to urban rail stations and highway interchanges are the most influential factors for planning intercity bus terminals, Location in the area and access time by all modes are again among the most influential factors, Multi-criteria analysis is expected to yield more feasible results than the analysis with only a few criteria. Planning should always be based on multi-criteria analysis, otherwise some investments can be made for infeasible projects or some urgent investments can be left behind their planned schedule.

Cities, like Istanbul should have a planned structure of the urban macroform, enabling ease of access and departure of intercity passengers within a planned bus terminal system. Operations of intercity buses from a single center cause waste of time and money. Therefore, building of a system of transfer facilities from intercity transportation to urban transportation modes is essential for increasing the quality of service of intercity bus transportation. Considering the fact that some of the largest companies use Dudullu, Kartal and Ataehir transfer points already in Anatolian side reveal a significant trend that creates advantages for users in terms of reducing time of access and cost of transfer. However, this trend should be handled in a planned manner. In this way, intercity bus transportation will be more convenient and faster by organizing the bus terminal areas in a planned way for the welfare of public. Bus terminals that are close to ring roads have high accessibility and integration with other transport hubs improve the level of service of intercity bus transportation. For this reason, it is important for bus terminals to have high standard highway and railway connections in order to provide transfer convenience and most importantly to strengthen the public transport system.

When Istanbuls bus terminal locations are evaluated in the existing conditions, Esenler Bus Terminal has a number of positive aspects in terms of the location criteria. Essentially, those intercity trip production-attraction areas must be planned within the structure of urban development axes in the European side and that system extends to Ataturk International Airport. On the other hand, the Sirkeci-Halkal Railway transferring point can be seen as a feasible location for the intercity bus terminal. Acknowledgement This paper is a part of the Masters Thesis titled Yerseim lkeleri Dorultusunda Istanbul Otogarlarnn ve neri Otogar Alanlarnn ok ltl Deerlendirmesi submitted to the Graduate School of Baheehir University in October 2012 by the first author of this paper under the supervision of the second author. References 1. Blunden, W.R., 1971. The Land-use / transport system, Pergamon Press Ltd., Headington Hill Hall, Oxford: Great Britain. 2. Hamamcoglu, C., 2009. Ulam ann kentsel hizmet alanlarnn yer seimine etkilerinin Istanbul Tarihi Yarmada rneinde deerlendirilmesi, Doktora Tezi, stanbul Yldz Teknik niversitesi FBE. stanbul. 3. Kara, D., 2012. Yer seim ilkeleri dorultusunda stanbul otogarlarnn ve neri otogar alanlarnn ok ltl deerlendirmesi. Yksek Lisans Tezi, Baheehir niversitesi FBE. stanbul. 4. BB, mar ve ehircilik Daire Bakanl, ehir Planlama Mdrl, 2009. 1/100.000 lekli stanbul evre Dzeni Plan raporu stanbul. 5. BB Ulam Daire Bakanl. Ulam Planlama Mdrl, 2011. stanbul Metropoliten Alan Kentsel Ulam Ana Plan (UAP) raporu, stanbul. 6. BB, Ulam Daire Bakanl, Ulam Planlama Mdrl, 2007. stanbul Ulam Master Plan Revize Edilmesi Projesi Kapsamnda ATTK raporu stanbul. 7. BB, mar ve ehircilik Daire Bakanl, ehir Planlama Mdrl, 2006. MP konut ve yaam kalitesi grubu raporu, stanbul. 8. BB, Ulam Daire Bakanl, Ulam Planlama Mdrl, 2011. stanbul Metropoliten Alan Kentsel Ulam Ana Plan (IUAP) yolculuk talep modeli verileri stanbul. 9. BB, ehir Planlama Mdrl, stanbul bykehir alan ve evresinde; tarm sektrnn geliim srecinin meknsal boyutu ile birlikte incelenmesi ve aratrlmas, bu sektrn gelecee dnk gelime eilim ve potansiyellerinin belirlenmesi, planlamaya dnk gelime stratejileri ve modellerinin tanmlanmas konularna ynelik analitik etd ii, zel teknik artname no: 6.5.3. yerbilimleri sentez ve nerileri, stanbul. 10. BB, mar ve ehircilik Daire Bakanl, ehir Planlama Mdrl, 2006. MP arazi kullanm raporu, stanbul. (2009-2010 yl gncelleme)