{"references": ["1.\tBouyssou, D.; Jacquet-Lagr\u00e8ze, E.; Perny, P.; S\u0142owi\u0144ski, R.; Vanderpooten, D.; Vincke, P. (eds.). Aiding decisions with multiple criteria: essays in honor of Bernard Roy. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science 44. Springer Science+ Business Media, 2002, 558 p. doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-0843-4 2.\tBrans J.P.; Vincke, P.; Mareschal B. How to select and how to rank projects: The Promotehee method. European Journal of Operational Research 1986, 24(2), 228-238. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5 3.\tBrans, J.P.; De Smet, Y. PROMETHEE Methods. In: Greco S., Ehrgott M., Rui J. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. State of the Art Surveys (2nd ed.), New York: Springer Science+Business Media, 2016, 187\u2013219. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3094-4 4.\tIvanovi\u0107, I.; Gruji\u010di\u0107, D.; Macura, D.; Jovi\u0107, J.; Bojovi\u0107, N. One approach for road transport project selection. Transport Policy 2013, 25, 22-29. doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.10.001 5.\tJacyna, M.; Wasiak, M. The multiple evaluation method of infrastructure investment in railway transport system. Prace Naukowe Politechniki Warszawskiej \u2013 Transport 2017, 63, 119-124 (in polish). 6.\tKicinski, M.; Bienczak, M.; Fierek, S. The case of using the multicriteria decision method to evaluate of the road system in Gniezno. Autobusy. Technika, Eksploatacja, Systemy Transportowe 2018(\u0430), 12, 1078\u20131084. doi:10.24136/atest.2018.554 (in polish). 7.\tKicinski, M.; Bie\u0144czak, M.; Fierek, S.; Ba\u0142aga, E.; M\u0105dry, M. Analysis and evaluation of solutions regarding the change of the road system aimed to improve the transport of residents in connection with the obstructions at crossings in the area of Mnichowska, Cienista and Gajowa Streets in Gniezno \u2013 final report) Hipolit Cegielski State College of Higher Education in Gniezno/Poznan University of Technology, Gniezno/Poznan, 2018(b) (in polish, unpublished material). 8.\tLocal Data Bank [online cit.: 2019-03-10]. Available from: https://bdl.stat.gov.pl 9.\tMardani, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Khalifah, Z.; Jusoh, A.; Md Nor, K. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques in transportation systems: a systematic review of the state of the art literature. Transport 2016, 31(3), 359\u2013385. doi:10.3846/16484142.2015.1121517 10.\tMareschal, B.; Brans, J.P.; Vincke, P. Promethee: A new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis. Operational Research, 1984, 3, 477\u2013490.", "11.\tNosal, K.; Solecka, K. Application of AHP method for multi-criteria evaluation of variants of the integration of urban public transport. Transportation Research Procedia 2014, 3, 269\u2013278. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.006. 12.\tRoy, B. Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Springer, 1996, 293 p. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-2500-1 13.\tSalling, K.; Leleur, S.; Jensen, A. Modelling decision support and uncertainty for large transport infrastructure projects: The CLG-DSS model of the \u00d8resund Fixed Link. Decision Support Systems, 2007, 43, 1539-1547. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2006.06.009 14.\tShakir, M.; Khurshid, M.; Iqbal, J.; Adeel, M. Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM) for evaluation of different transportation alternatives: A case of Rawalpindi bypass Pakistan. Journal of Sustainable Development of Transport and Logistics 2018, 3(3), 38\u201354. doi:10.14254/jsdtl.2018.3-3.3 15.\tShi, J.; Zhou, N. A quantitative transportation project investment evaluation approach with both equity and efficiency aspects. Research in Transportation Economics, 2012, 36, 93-100. doi: 10.1016/j.retrec.2012.03.002 16.\tShi, Y.; Wang, S.; Kou, G.; Wallenius, J. (eds.). New State of MCDM in the 21st Century: Selected Papers of the 20th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making 2009. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, 213 p. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-19695-9 17.\tShiau, T. Evaluating transport infrastructure decisions under uncertainty. Transportation Planning and Technology, 2014, 6(36), 525-538. doi:10.1080/03081060.2014.921405 18.\tSinha, K.C.; Labi, S. Transportation decision making: principles of project evaluation and programming. Wiley, 2007, 567 p. doi: 10.1002/9780470168073 19.\tSolecka, K. Comparison of Promethee II and AHP methods on example of evaluation of variants of urban public transport system integration. Logistyka 2015, 3, 4521-4532 (in Polish). 20.\tTanczos, K. Multicriteria evaluation methods and group decision systems for transport infrastructure development projects. In: Labb\u00e9 M., Laporte G., Tanczos K., Toint P. (eds) Operations Research and Decision Aid Methodologies in Traffic and Transportation Management. NATO ASI Series (Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences), 166. Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998, 164-182. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03514-6_7", "21.\tVincke, P. Multicriteria decision \u2013 AID, Chichester: John Wiley, 1992, 154 p. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-4896(93)90056-O 22.\tVisual Promethee [online cit.: 2019-04-10]. Available from: http://www.promethee-gaia.net 23.\tZmuda-Trzebiatowski, P. Participatory urban transport projects appraisal. Poznan: Publishing House of Poznan University of Technology, Poznan, 2016, 177 p. (in Polish). 24.\tZmuda-Trzebiatowski, P.; Bienczak, M.; Kicinski, M.; Fierek, S.; Zak, J. Multiple criteria evaluation of variants of rebuilding roundabout \u2013 case study: modernisation of the Rondo Rataje in Poznan. Technika Transportu Szynowego, 2012, 9, 4585\u20134594 (in Polish)."]}

The article presents the application of the MCDM methods, belonging to the PROMETHEE family, for the evaluation of potential solutions of the road system (RS) in the selected area located in Gniezno, historical capital of Poland. The proposed set of heuristics variants of RS were assessed by a coherent family of criteria taking into account different groups of stakeholders. The decision problem was defined as an issue of prioritising a finite number of variants of road-rail system reconstruction. The proposed model of decision-maker’s preferences was developed based on the results of surveys conducted during public consultations with the residents of the area. The originality of the study consists in that the model became the basis for the final variants ranking that was subsequently compared with the results obtained using another MCDM method – ELECTRE III, where the decision-maker's preference model was developed on the basis of information obtained from independent experts.