Transit vehicles’ headway distribution and service irregularity

Abstract

Pairing, or bunching, of vehicles on a public transportation line influences the adaptive choice at stops due to the random headways and waiting times it determines. In order to ensure consistency with the characteristics of service perturbations, as represented by a transit operation model, it is important to identify the headway distributions representing service perturbations. A stochastic simulation model is developed for a one-way transit line, which accounts for several service characteristics (dwell time at stops, capacity constraint and arrivals during the dwell time). Samples of headways at the main stops are utilized to build histograms of the headway’s frequencies by their length, which allow to identify the functional forms and parameters of the headway distributions. For these stops, density plots of consecutive headways are also produced. Sensitivity analysis is carried out to identify the effect of key parameters (dispatching headway, maximum load and running time).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Arnold BC, Castillo E, Sarabia JM, Gonzalez-Vega L (2000) Multiple modes in densities with normal conditionals. Stat Probab Lett 49(4):355–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellei G, Gkoumas K (2009) Integrated public transit priority strategies. In: Proceedings of CASPT XI

  3. Bertini RL, El-Geneidy AM (2004) Modeling transit trip time using archived bus dispatch system data. J Transp Eng ASCE 130(1):56–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bouzaïene-Ayari B, Gendreau M, Nguyen S (2001) Modeling bus stops in transit networks: A survey and new formulations. Transp Sci 35(3):304–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chapman RA, Michel JF (1978) Modelling the tendency of buses to form pairs. Transp Sci 12(2):165–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Daganzo CF (2009) A headway-based approach to eliminate bus bunching: Systematic analysis and comparisons. Transp Res B 43(10):913–921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Desaulniers G, Hickman MD (2007) Public transit. In: Barnhart C, Laporte G (eds) Handbooks in operations research & management science: Transportation, vol 14. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 69–127

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gentile G, Nguyen S, Pallottino S (2005) Route choice on transit networks with online information at stops. Transp Sci 39(3):289–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hickman MD (2001) An analytic stochastic model for the transit vehicle holding problem. Transp Sci 35(3):215–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Larson R, Odoni A (1981) Urban operations research. Prentice Hall, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Matsumoto M, Nishimura T (1998) Mersenne twister: A 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudorandom number generator. Trans Modell Comput Simul 8(1):3–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Nagatani T (2001a) Bunching transition in a time-headway model of a bus route. Phys Rev E 63(3):36115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Nagatani T (2001b) Interaction between buses and passengers on a bus route. Physica A 296(1):320–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nagatani T (2002) Bunching and delay in bus-route system with a couple of recurrent buses. Physica A 305(3):629–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Newell GF, Potts RB (1964) Maintaining a bus schedule. Proc 2nd Aust Road Res Board Conf 2(1):388–393

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nguyen S, Pallottino S, Gendreau M (1998) Implicit enumeration of hyperpaths in logit models for transit networks. Transp Sci 32(1):54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sarabia JM, Castillo E, Pasqual M, Sarabia M (2007) Bivariate income distributions with lognormal conditionals. J Econ Inequal 5(3):371–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Spiess H, Florian M (1989) Optimal strategies: A new assignment model for transit networks. Transp Res B 23(2):83–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Strathman JG, Kimpel TJ, Dueker KJ, Gerhart R, Turner K, Griffin D, Callas S (2001) Bus transit operations control: Review and an experiment involving Tri-Met’s automated bus dispatch system. J Public Transp 4(1):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  20. Sun A, Hickman M (2008) The holding problem at multiple holding stations. In: Hickman M, Mirchandani P, Voss S (eds) Computer-aided systems in public transport. Springer, Berlin, pp 339–362

    Google Scholar 

  21. Turnquist MA, Blume SW (1980) Evaluating potential effectiveness of headway control strategies for transit systems. Transp Res Rec 746:25–29

    Google Scholar 

  22. Vuchic VR (1969) Propagation of schedule disturbances in line-haul passenger transportation. Rev UITP 18(4):281–285

    Google Scholar 

  23. Welding PI (1957) The instability of close interval service. Oper Res Q 8(3):133–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilson NHM, Macchi RA, Fellows RE, Deckoff AA (1992) Improving service on the MBTA green line through better operations control. Transp Res Rec 1361:296–304

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Konstantinos Gkoumas.

Additional information

Prof. Giuseppe Bellei passed away while this paper was under review.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bellei, G., Gkoumas, K. Transit vehicles’ headway distribution and service irregularity. Public Transp 2, 269–289 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-010-0024-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Operation models
  • Vehicle pairing
  • Transit service performance
  • Transit assignment