Real-time information (RTI) is increasingly being implemented in transit networks worldwide. The evaluation of the effect of RTI requires dynamic modeling of transit operations and of passenger path choices. The authors present a dynamic transit analysis and evaluation tool that represents timetables, operation strategies, RTI, adaptive passenger choices, and traffic dynamics at the network level. Transit path choices are modeled as a sequence of boarding, walking, and alighting decisions that passengers undertake when carrying out their journey. The model was applied to the Metro network area of Stockholm, Sweden, under various operating conditions and information provision scenarios, as a proof of concept. An analysis of results indicated substantial path choice shifts and potential time savings associated with more comprehensive RTI provision and transfer coordination improvements.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
LamW. H. K., and BellM. G. H.Advanced Modeling for Transit Operations and Service Planning.Pergamon, Oxford, United Kingdom, 2003.
2.
DialR. B.Transit Pathfinder Algorithm. In Highway Research Record 205, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1967, pp. 67–85.
3.
Le ClercqF.A Public Transport Assignment Method. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 13, 1972, pp. 91–96.
4.
ChirquiC., and RobillardP.Common Bus Lines. Transportation Science, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1975, pp. 115–121.
5.
MarguierP. H. J., and CederA.Passenger Waiting Strategies for Overlapping Bus Route. Transportation Science, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1984, pp. 207–230.
6.
SpiessH., and FlorianM.Optimal Strategies: A New Assignment Model for Transit Networks. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1989, pp. 83–102.
7.
NguyenS., and PallottinoS.Equilibrium Traffic Assignment for Large-Scale Transit Networks. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 37, 1988, pp. 176–186.
8.
TongC. O., and WongS. C.A Stochastic Transit Assignment Model Using a Dynamic Schedule-Based Network. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 33, No. 2, 1999, pp. 107–121.
9.
NguyenS., PallottinoS., and MalucelliF.A Modeling Framework for Passenger Assignment on a Transport Network with Timetables. Transportation Science, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2001, pp. 238–249.
10.
HallR. W.The Fastest Path Through a Network with Random Time-Dependent Travel Times. Transportation Science, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1986, pp. 182–188.
11.
NuzzoloA., RussoF., and CrisalliU.A Doubly Dynamic Schedule-Based Assignment Model for Transit Networks. Transportation Science, Vol. 35, No. 3, 2001, pp. 268–285.
12.
WahbaM., and ShalabyA.Large-Scale Application for MILATRAS: Case Study of the Toronto Transit Network. Presented at 88th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2009.
13.
RieserM., and NagelK.Combined Agent-Based Simulation of Private Car Traffic and Transit. Proc. 12th International Conference on Travel Behaviour Research, Jaipur, India, 2009.
14.
CaseyR. F., LabellL. N., MonizL., RoyalJ. W., SheenanM., SheenanT., BrownA., FoyM., ZinkerM., SchweigerC. L., MarksB., KaplanB., and ParkerD.Advanced Public Transportation Systems—The State of the Art: Update 2000.FTA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000.
15.
HickmanM. D., and WilsonN. H. M.Passenger Travel Time and Path Choice Implications of Real-Time Transit Information. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1995, pp. 211–226.
16.
GentileG., NguyenS., and PallottinoS.Route Choice on Transit Networks with Online Information at Stops. Transportation Science, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2005, pp. 289–297.
17.
NökelK., and WekeckS.Boarding and Alighting in Frequency-Based Transit Assignment. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2111, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 60–67.
18.
ToledoT., CatsO., BurghoutW., and KoutsopoulosH. N.Mesoscopic Simulation for Transit Operations. Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 18, No. 6, 2010, pp. 896–908.
19.
BurghoutW., KoutsopoulosH. N., and AndreassonI.A Discrete-Event Mesoscopic Traffic Simulation Model for Hybrid Traffic Simulation. Proc. IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference, 2006, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, IEEE, Piscataway, N.J., 2006.
20.
Kittelson and Associates, Inc. TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 2nd ed. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.
21.
CatsO., BurghoutW., ToledoT., and KoutsopoulosH. N.Mesoscopic Modeling of Bus Public Transportation. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2188, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 9–18.
22.
AndroutsopoulosK. N., and ZografosK. G.Solving the Multi-Criteria Time-Dependent Routing and Scheduling Problem in a Multimodal Fixed Scheduled Network. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 192, 2009, pp. 18–28.
23.
SweetR. J.An Aggregate Measure of Travel Utility. Transportation Research B, Vol. 31, No. 5, 1997, pp. 403–416.
24.
JanssonK., and RidderstolpeB.A Method for the Route-Choice Problem in Public Transport Systems. Transportation Science, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1992, pp. 246–251.
25.
KoutsopoulosH. N., and WangZ.Simulation of Urban Rail Operations: Application Framework. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2006, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 84–91.
GuoZ., and WilsonN.Assessing the Cost of Transfer Inconvenience in Public Transport Systems: A Case Study of the London Underground. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2011, pp. 91–104.
30.
Hoogendoorn-LanserS., van NessR., and BovyP. H. L.Path Size Modeling in Multimodal Route Choice Analysis. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1921, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 27–34.
