Abstract
In this paper we evaluate the output from four headway-based public transport model variants for modeling the public transports in Stockholm, Sweden. The results from the four models are analyzed and compared to trip observations. The comparisons are based on model instances where the parameters in the generalized travel time function are calibrated. The best possible parameter values have been found using the calibration procedures SPSA and Compass search. Two different objective functions have been evaluated for the calibration.
Numerical experiments have been performed using a public transport model implemented in Visum by Storstockholms lokaltrafik. For the calibration and analysis, trip observations from the Swedish national travel survey and data generated from a public transport trip planner are used.
From the numerical results, it is concluded that it is of less importance to find the best possible parameter values in the generalized cost function than selecting the best model variant. For the Stockholm public transport model, the numerical results indicate that the models in the class of Random departure time models result in a better fit to the observed trips than the models in the class of Optimal strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrantes PAL, Wardman M (2011) Meta-analysis of UK values of travel time: An update. Transp Res A 45:1–17
Billi C, Gentile G, Nguyen S, Pallottino S (2004) Rethinking the wait model at transit stops. In: Proc TRISTAN-Workshop, Guadeloupe
Bowman LA, Turnquist MA (1981) Service frequency, schedule reliability and passenger wait times at transit stops. Transp Res A 15:465–471
Farrol B, Livshits V (1998) Analysis of individual transit trips in Emme/2: Calibration of 1996 TTC trips disaggregate assignment. http://www.dmg.utoronto.ca/pdf/reports/1996to2000/transit_emme.pdf
Florian M, Constantin I (2012) A note on logit choices in strategy transit assignment. EURO J Transp Logist 1:29–46
Friedrich M, Wekeck S (2002) A schedule-based Transit Assignment Model addressing the Passengers’ Choice among competing Connections. In: Proceedings of conference, The schedule-based approach in dynamic transit modelling: theory and applications, Ischia, pp 159–173
Fung WCS (2005) Calibration and validation of transit network assignment models. MSc thesis, University of Hong, Kong. http://hub.hku.hk/bitstream/10722/28760/5/FullText.pdf
Gentile G, Nguyen S, Pallottino S (2005) Route choice on transit networks with online information at stops. Transp Sci 39:289–297
Hasselström D (1981) Public transportation planning - a mathematical programming approach. PhD thesis, Department of Business Administration, University of Gothenburg, Sweden
Horowitz AJ (1981) Subjective value of time in bus transit travel. Transportation 10:149–164
INRO (2010) Emme 3 at http://www.inrosoftware.com/
Jayakrishnan R, McNally MG, Marar AG, Ramanathan BV (1996) Advanced public transit systems planning: transit assignment and implications of route choice under information. Final report, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Irvine, at http://www.its.uci.edu/its/publications/papers/CTSS/UCI-ITS-TS-WP-96-3.pdf
Kolda TG, Lewis RM, Torczon V (2003) Optimization by direct search: New perspectives on some classical and modern methods. SIAM Rev 45:385–482
Kurauchi F, Schmöcker J-D, Fonzone A, Hemdan SMH, Shimamoto H, Bell MGH (2012) Estimating weights of times and transfers for hyperpath travelers. J Transp Res Board 2284:89–99
Larsen OI (2010) Kollektivassignment i Visum og Emme/3, Notat: 11. desember 2010, Høgskolen i Molde
Larsen OI, Sunde O (2008) Waiting time and the role and value of information in scheduled transport. Res Transp Econ 23:41–52
Nökel K, Wekeck S (2007) Choice models in frequency-based transit assignment. In: European Transport Conference 2007
OpenTripPlanner (2012) The OpenTripplanner Project, Metro 2009–2011 Regional Travel Options Grant final report, at http://opentripplanner.org
Parveen M, Shalaby A, Wahba M (2007) G-Emme/2: Automatic calibration tool of the Emme/2 transit assignment using genetic algorithms. J Transp Eng 133:549–555
PTV (2007) VISUM 10 at http://ptv-vision.com/
PTV (2012) VISUM 12 at http://ptv-vision.com/
Samtrafiken (2012) Samtrafiken GTFS-data published at http://www.trafiklab.se/node/8226, August 15, 2012
SIKA (2007) RES 2005–2006 Den nationella resvaneundersökningen, 2007:19. http://trafa.se/PageDocuments/ss_2007_19_1.pdf
Spall JC (1998) Implementation of the simultaneous perturbation algorithm for stochastic optimization. IEEE Trans Aerosp Electron Syst 34:817–823
Spiess H, Florian M (1998) Optimal strategies: A new assignment model for transit networks. Transp Res B 23(2):83–102
Wardman M (2004) Public transport values of time. Transp Policy 11:363–377
Zhang X, Srinivasan R, Zhao K, Van Liew M (2008), Evaluation of global optimization algorithms for parameter calibration of a computationally intensive hydrologic model. Hydrol Process. doi:10.1002/hyp.7152
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rydergren, C. Comparison of headway-based public transport models. Public Transp 5, 177–191 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-013-0071-y
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-013-0071-y