A Stochastic Process Approach for Frequency-based Transit Assignment with Strict Capacity Constraints
- First Online:
- 201 Downloads
Transit assignment models represent the stochastic nature of waiting times, but usually adopt a deterministic representation route flows and costs. Especially in cities where transit vehicles are small and not operating to timetables, there is a need to represent the variability in flows and costs to enable planners make more informed decisions. Stochastic process (SP) models consider the day-to-day dynamics of the transit demand-supply system, explicitly modelling passengers’ information acquisition and decision processes. A Monte Carlo simulation based SP model that includes strict capacity constraints is presented in this paper. It uses micro-simulation to constrain passenger flows to capacities and obtain realistic cost estimates. Applications of the model and its comparison with the De Cea and Fernandez (Transp Sci, 27:133–147, 1993) model are presented using a small network.
KeywordsTransit assignment Stochastic process Strict capacity constraints Day-to-day dynamics
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Davis GA, Nihan NL (1993) Large population approximations of a general stochastic traffic assignment model. Oper Res 41:169–178Google Scholar
- De Cea J, Bunster JP, Zubieta L, Florian M (1988) Optimal strategies and optimal routes in public transit assignment models: an empirical comparison. Traffic Eng Control 49:520–526Google Scholar
- De Cea J, Fernandez E (1993) Transit assignment for congestion public transport networks: an equilibrium model. Transp Sci 27:133–147Google Scholar
- Sheffi Y (1985) Urban transportation networks: equilibrium analysis with mathematical programming methods. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
- Smith MJ (1984) The stability of a dynamic model of traffic assignment: an application of a method of Lyapunov. Transp Sci 18:245–252Google Scholar
- Wu JH, Florian M, Marcotte P (1994) Transit equilibrium assignment: a model and solution algorithms. Transp Sci 28:193–203Google Scholar