Urban transit assignment model based on augmented network with in-vehicle congestion and transfer congestion
- 200 Downloads
This paper presents an augmented network model to represent urban transit system. Through such network model, the urban transit assignment problem can be easily modeled like a generalized traffic network. Simultaneously, the feasible route in such augmented transit network is then defined in accordance with the passengers’ behaviors. The passengers’ travel costs including walking time, waiting time, in-vehicle time and transfer time are formulated while the congestions at stations and the congestions in transit vehicles are all taken into account. On the base of these, an equilibrium model for urban transit assignment problem is presented and an improved shortest path method based algorithm is also proposed to solve it. Finally, a numerical example is provided to illustrate our approach.
KeywordsTransit assignment augmented network congestion transfer algorithm
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Jansson, J.O. (1980). A simple bus line model for optimization of service frequency and bus size. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 14(1): 53–80Google Scholar
- Le Clercq, F. (1972). A public transport assignment model. Traffic Engineering and Control, 14: 91–96Google Scholar
- Meschini, L., Gentile, G. & Papola, N. (2007). A frequency-based transit model for dynamic traffic assignment to multimodal networks. In: 17th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, London, July 2007Google Scholar
- Mohring, H. (1972). Optimization and scale economics in urban bus transportation. American Economic Review, 62: 591–604Google Scholar
- Schmenner, R.W. (1976). The demand for urban bus transit. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 10(1): 68–86Google Scholar
- Sheffi, Y. (1985). Urban Transportation Networks: Equilibrium Analysis with Mathematical Programming Methods. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
- Turvey, R. & Mohring H. (1975). Optimal bus fares. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 9(3): 280–286Google Scholar