Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 3–4, pp 435–463 | Cite as

Dynamic Vulnerability Analysis of Public Transport Networks: Mitigation Effects of Real-Time Information

  • Oded CatsEmail author
  • Erik Jenelius


In this paper, a dynamic and stochastic notion of public transport network vulnerability is developed. While previous studies have considered only the network topology, the granular nature of services requires a more refined model for supply and demand interactions in order to evaluate the impacts of disruptions. We extend the measures of betweenness centrality (often used to identify potentially important links) and link importance to a dynamic-stochastic setting from the perspectives of both operators and passengers. We also formalize the value of real-time information (RTI) provision for reducing disruption impacts. The developed measures are applied in a case study for the high-frequency public transport network of Stockholm, Sweden. The importance ranking of the links varies depending on the RTI provision scheme. The results suggest that betweenness centrality (passenger/vehicle flows) may not be a good indicator of link importance. The results of the case study reveal that while service disruptions have negative effects and RTI may have significant positive influence, counter examples also exist due to secondary spillover effects.


Vulnerability Public transport Disruption Transit assignment Network centrality Critical links Real-time information Mitigation 



The authors would like to thank Lars-Göran Mattsson, participants at the 5th International Symposium on Transportation Network Reliability (INSTR), 18–19 December 2012, Hong Kong, and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments on the paper.


  1. Angeloudis P, Fisk D (2006) Large subway systems as complex networks. Phys A Stat Mech Appl 3:553–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball MO, Golden BL, Vohra RV (1989) Finding the most vital arcs in a network. Oper Res Lett 8:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berche B, von Ferber C, Holovatch T, Holovatch Y (2009) Resilience of public transport networks against attacks. Eur Phys J B 71:125–137Google Scholar
  4. Berdica K (2002) An introduction to road vulnerability: what has been done, is done and should be done. Transp Policy 9:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carson Y, Maria A (1997) Simulation optimization: methods and applications. Proceedings of the 1997 Winter Simulation Conference, 118–126Google Scholar
  6. Cats O (2013) Multi-agent transit operations and assignment model. Procedia Comput Sci 19:809–814, The 2nd International Workshop on Agent-based Mobility, Traffic and Transportation Models, Methodologies and Applications (ABMTRANS)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cats O, Koutsopoulos HN, Burghout W, Toledo T (2011a) Effect of real-time transit information on dynamic passenger path choice. Transp Res Rec 2217:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cats O, Larijani AN, Burghout W, Koutsopoulos HN (2011b) Impacts of holding control strategies on transit performance: a bus simulation model analysis. Transp Res Rec 2216:51–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colak S, Lus H, Atligan AR (2010) Vulnerability of networks against critical links failure. Available at:
  10. Criado R, Hernández-Bermejo B, Romance M (2007) Efficiency, vulnerability and cost: an overview with applications to subway networks worldwide. Int J Bifurcation Chaos 17:2289–2301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crucitti P, Latora V, Porta S (2007) Centrality measures in spatial networks of urban streets. Phys Rev E 73:1–5Google Scholar
  12. Derrible S, Kennedy C (2010) The complexity and robustness of metro networks. Physica A 389:3678–3691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dowling R, Skabardonis A, Alexiadis V (2004) Traffic analysis toolbox volume III: guidelines for applying traffic microsimulation modeling software. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHA), Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Freeman LC, Borgatti SP, White DR (1991) Centrality in valued graphs: a measure of betweenness based on network flow. Soc Networks 13:141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jenelius E, Mattsson L-G (2012) Road network vulnerability analysis of area-covering disruptions: a grid-based approach with case study. Transp Res A 46:746–760Google Scholar
  16. Jenelius E, Mattsson L-G (2014). Road network vulnerability analysis: Conceptualization, implementation and application. Comput Environ Urban Syst, accepted for publication.Google Scholar
  17. Jenelius E, Petersen T, Mattsson L-G (2006) Importance and exposure in road network vulnerability analysis. Transp Res A 40:537–560Google Scholar
  18. Latora V, Marchiori M (2007) A measure of centrality based on network efficiency. New J Phys 9:188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mahmassani HS, Jayakrishnan R (1991) System performance and user response under real-time information in a congested traffic corridor. Transp Res A 25:293–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murray-Tuite PM, Mahmassani HS (2004) Methodology for the determination of vulnerable links in a transportation network. Transp Res Rec 1882:88–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nicholson AJ, Du ZP (1994) Improving network reliability: a framework. In: Proceedings of 17th Australian Road Research Board Conference, 3:1–17Google Scholar
  22. Ratliff HD, Sicilia GT, Lubore SH (1975) Finding the n most vital links in flow networks. Manag Sci 21:531–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Scott DM, Novak DC, Aultman-Hall L, Guo F (2006) Network robustness index: a new method for identifying critical links and evaluating the performance of transportation networks. J Transp Geogr 14:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. SL – AB StorStockholms Lokaltrafik (2009) Annual report 2009. Available at: [in Swedish]
  25. Sohn J (2006) Evaluating the significance of highway network links under the flood damage: an accessibility approach. Transp Res A 40:491–506Google Scholar
  26. Taylor MAP, Susilawati (2012) Remoteness and accessibility in the vulnerability analysis of regional road networks. Transp Res A 46:761–771Google Scholar
  27. Toledo T, Cats O, Burghout W, Koutsopoulos HN (2010) Mesoscopic simulation for transit operations. Transp Res C 18:896–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. von Ferber C, Holovatch T, Holovatch Y, Palchykov V (2009) Public transport networks: empirical analysis and modeling. Eur Phys J B 68:261–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. von Ferber C, Berche B, Holovatch T, Holovatch Y (2012) A tale of two cities: vulnerabilities of the London and Paris transit networks. J Transp Secur 5(3):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Transport ScienceKTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations