**3. The decision process**

**Figure 2.** Layout of the seaport of Trieste.

In this context, the North Adriatic Ports Association Studies project (NAPA) was developed, which aims to support future development projects of the Northern Adriatic ports, thus contributing to the development of seaports as points of interconnection between different transport systems. In 2012, the NAPA carried out a market study on the potential handling capacity of containers in the ports of Koper, Ravenna, Rijeka, Trieste, and Venice. The five NAPA ports, in fact, intend to develop container traffic, becoming a multi‐port gateway for Asian and Central and Eastern Europe economies. Each port has, therefore, conducted specific research as part of NAPA Studies. As far as the Port of Trieste is concerned, its current infrastructure, layout, and operations were deeply investigated and the bottlenecks, which could negatively affect the port's role within the network, were identified. A set of different feasible solutions was found that encompass the reconfiguration of the railway infrastructure and operations, in order to make possible the composition and movement of trains longer than those currently possible inside the port, ensuring efficiency improvement of the operational

These improvements are also required to meet the railway infrastructure requirements for the core network within the European Union's Regulation No. 1315/2013 [1] on "Union guidelines for the development of the trans‐European transport network" (art. 39 "at least 22.5 t axle load,

100 km/h line speed and the possibility of running trains with a length of 740 m").

activities, particularly for containers, and, consequently, traffic increase.

118 Applications and Theory of Analytic Hierarchy Process - Decision Making for Strategic Decisions

Different solutions for the reconfiguration of the port infrastructure were proposed, and the main aim of the decision process was then to compare the feasible alternatives and to identify the best project for the Port of Trieste in consideration of the EU's goals and the subjects who are interested in the improvement of the facility. Three main decision‐makers are involved in the decision process: the port authority, the Italian railway infrastructure manager—Rete Ferroviaria Italiana (RFI)—and the Region Friuli Venezia Giulia. They are all interested in the development of the port, but they pursue different goals.

The port authority has the primary task of defining the port strategies, planning, coordination, promotion, and control of port operations and other commercial and industrial activities in the port. The authority is also responsible for the ordinary and extraordinary maintenance of the common areas within the port and for the general services to port users. RFI has the main task to develop, manage, and maintain the railway network. It is also responsible for the commercial access and use of the infrastructure by transport companies. The Region Friuli Venezia Giulia has the competence in the regional development, transport planning, and port regulation. Accordingly, RFI may be responsible for railway design and construction, the Region for transport network planning, and the port authority for the port development.

On account of the complex setting, the evaluation of the solutions has been considered as an important stage of the overall project aimed at supporting the final decision. As stated before, the main goal of the assessment activity was to identify the best technical solution to improve the railway infrastructure both in the Port and in Campo Marzio station. Within NAPA Studies project, a team of experts has been built in order to support the analysis and evaluation process. The experts were able to estimate the performances of the alternatives against the main criteria included in the EU Regulation for this kind of interventions, and to support the decision‐ makers throughout the assessment.

The first step was the identification of the alternatives. In particular, three new projects were proposed and a "do minimum" alternative was also taken into consideration. In summary, the candidate solutions are the following:

"Do minimum": The alternative refers exactly to the actual situation in which only planned maintenance activities are considered; of course, long trains cannot be composed nor circulate in the system;

Alternative "650 m": The project allows the composition and circulation of trains 650 m long; it includes a new intermodal terminal between Campo Marzio yard and the Port area to be used by Molo VII container terminal; the solution was promoted by RFI;

Alternative "750 m A": The project allows the composition and circulation of trains 750 m long. The composition and de‐composition of longer trains is made up through a set of shunting movements of shorter trains using the existing openings; long trains cannot enter the port directly;

Alternative "750 m B": The project allows the composition and circulation of trains 750 m long. In this case, an additional opening should be realized to allow the direct long train movement from and to Molo VII, while 650 m trains may use the other openings and reach Molo V and VI with simpler shunting operations.

The alternatives were analyzed with particular reference to the goals of TEN‐T policy, and it was decided to investigate the methods that could be suitable to support the evaluation process ensuring transparency and participation. The methodological aspects and the resulting choice are discussed in the next section.
