Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 213–240 | Cite as

A Study on Network Design Problems for Multi-modal Networks by Probit-based Stochastic User Equilibrium

  • Kenetsu Uchida
  • Agachai Sumalee
  • David Watling
  • Richard Connors


This paper develops a multi-modal transport network model considering various travel modes including railway, bus, auto, and walking. Travellers are assumed to choose their multi-modal routes so as to minimise their perceived disutilities of travel following the Probit Stochastic User Equilibrium (SUE) condition. Factors influencing the disutility of a multi-modal route include actual travel times, discomfort on transit systems, expected waiting times, fares, and constants specific to transport modes. The paper then deals with the multi-modal network design problem (NDP). The paper employs the method of sensitivity analysis to define linear approximation functions between the Probit SUE link flows and the design parameters, which are then used as constraints in the sub-problem of the NDP instead of the original SUE condition. Based on this reformulated NDP, an efficient algorithm for solving the problem is proposed in the paper. Two instances of this general NDP formulation are then presented in the paper: the optimal frequency design problem for public transport services (FDP), and the anti-freezing admixture dispersion problem (AADP).


Network design Multi-modal networks Stochastic user equilibrium Sensitivity analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdulaal M, LeBlanc LJ (1979) Continuous equilibrium network design models. Transp Res, Part B 13:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bielli M, Caramia M, Carotenuto P (2002) Genetic algorithms in bus network optimization. Transp Res, Part C 10:19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyce D, Bar-Gera H (2004) Multiclass combined models for urban travel forecasting. Netw Spat Econ 4:115–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carey M (1994a) A model and strategy for train pathing with choice of lines, platforms and routes. Transp Res, Part B 28:333–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carey M (1994b) Extending a train pathing model from one-way to two-way track. Transp Res, Part B 28:395–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carey M, Carville S (2003) Scheduling and platforming trains at busy complex stations. Transp Res, Part A 37:195–224Google Scholar
  7. Ceder A (1987) Methods for creating bus timetables. Transp Res Part A 21:59–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ceder A (2002) A step function for improving transit operations planning using fixed and variable scheduling. In: Taylor MAP (ed) Transportation and traffic theory (15th ISTTT). Elsevier, New York, pp 1–21Google Scholar
  9. Cepeda M, Cominetti R, Florian M (2006) A frequency-based assignment model for congested transit networks with strict capacity constraints: characterization and computation of equilibria. Transp Res, Part B 40:437–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chiriqui C, Robillard P (1975) Common bus lines. Transp Sci 9:115–121Google Scholar
  11. Clark SD, Watling DP (2002) Sensitivity analysis of the probit-based stochastic user equilibrium assignment model. Transp Res, Part B 36:617–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Comminetti R, Correa J (2001) Common-lines and passenger assignment in congested transit networks. Transp Sci 35:250–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Connors RD, Sumalee A, Watling DP (2006) Sensitivity analysis of the variable demand probit stochastic user equilibrium with multiple user-classes. Transp Res Part B (in press)Google Scholar
  14. Constantin I, Florian M (1995) Optimizing frequencies in a transit network: a nonlinear bi-level programming approach. Int Trans Oper Res 2:149–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Cea J, Fernandez JE (1989) Transit assignment to minimal routes: An effecient new algorithm. Traff Eng Control 30–10, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  16. De Cea J, Fernandez E (1993) Transit assignment for congested public transport system: an equilibrium model. Transp Sci 27:133–147Google Scholar
  17. Fernandez E, De Cea J, Florian M, Cabrera E (1994) Network equilibrium models with combined modes. Transp Sci 28:182–192Google Scholar
  18. Gao ZY, Sun H, Shan LL (2004) A continuous equilibrium network design model and algorithm for transit systems. Transp Res, Part B 38:235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamdouch Y, Marcotte P, Nguyen S (2004) Capacitated transit assignment with loading priorities. Math Program 101B:205–230Google Scholar
  20. Kamakura WA (1989) The estimation of multinomial probit models. A new calibration algorithm. Transp Sci 23:253–265Google Scholar
  21. Lam WHK, Zhang YP (2000) Capacity-constrained traffic assignment in networks with residual queues. ASCE J Transp Eng 126:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lam WHK, Gao ZY, Chan KS, Yang H (1999) A stochastic user equilibrium assignment model for congested transit networks. Transp Res, Part B 33:351–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lo HK, Yip CW, Wan KH (2003) Modelling transfer and non-linear fare structure in multi-modal network. Transp Res, Part B 37:149–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nguyen S, Pallotino S (1988) Equilibrium traffic assignemnt for large scale transit networks. Eur J Oper Res 37:176–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nielsen OA (2000) A stochastic transit assignment model considering difference in passenger utility functions. Transp Res, Part B 34:377–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sheffi Y (1985) Urban Transportation Networks. Prentice-Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  27. Shepherd SP, Sumalee A (2004) A genetic algorithm based approach to optimal toll level and location problems. Netw Spat Econ 4:161–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spiess H, Florian M (1989) Optimal strategies: a new assignment model for transit network. Transp Res, Part B 23:83–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sumalee A, Connors R, Watling DP (2005). Optimal toll design problem with improved behavioural equilibrium model: the case of Probit model. In: Hearn DW, Lawphongpanich S, Smith MJ (eds) Mathematical and computational models for congestion charging. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Tobin RL, Friesz TL (1988) Sensitivity analysis for equilibrium network flow. Transp Sci 22:242–250Google Scholar
  31. Wan QK, Lo HK (2003) A mixed integer formulation for multiple-route transit network design. J Math Model Algorithms 2:299–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wirasinghe SC, Liu G (1995) Optimal schedule design for a transit route with one intermediate time point. Transp Plan Technol 19:121–145Google Scholar
  33. Wu JH, Florian M, Marcotte P (1994) Transit equilibrium assignment: A model and solution algorithms. Trans Sci 28:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Yang H, Bell MGH (1997) Traffic restraint, road pricing and network equilibrium. Transp Res, Part B 31:303–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zwaneveld P, Kroon JL, Romeijn HE, Salomon M (1996) Routing trains through railway stations: model formulation and algorithms. Transp Sci 30:181–194Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenetsu Uchida
    • 1
  • Agachai Sumalee
    • 2
    • 3
  • David Watling
    • 3
  • Richard Connors
    • 3
  1. 1.Graduate School of EngineeringHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Structural EngineeringThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung HomHong Kong
  3. 3.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations