Public Transport

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 549–569 | Cite as

Modelling risk aversion using a disaggregate stochastic process model in congested transit networks

  • Padma Seetharaman
Original Paper


Existing transit assignment models which either use equilibrium or stochastic processes assume full knowledge of the network. This assumption leads to an assignment process wherein passengers renounce their individual experiences to base their route choice on the collective experiences on each route. This seems unrealistic especially in a congested network in the absence of any external source of information. The fact that passengers failing to board a service of their choice experience a different level of reliability to a passenger being able to board the same needs to be acknowledged and a model, sensitive to the fact that reliability is an individual entity, needs to be explored. The stochastic process model proves to be one of the advantageous methods for countering the asymmetric non-separable nature of strict capacity constraint transit assignment, thereby making it a possible choice for modelling reliability. In the current paper such a ‘Reliability based disaggregate stochastic process model (R-DSPM)’ following the Markov principles with strict capacity constraints is proposed. The R-DSPM framework provides a stationary and ergodic process model. The model is implemented onto an example network and its sensitivity to various parameters is discussed along with a case study.


Stochastic process model Strict capacity constraint, transit assignment Reliability Risk aversion 



The author acknowledges with gratitude the valuable suggestions of the supervisors Prof. David Watling and Dr. Chandra Balijepalli during the period of her PhD research (Seetharaman 2015) at the Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds, UK. The funding of Commonwealth Scholarship Commission-UK for this research is gratefully acknowledged along with thanks to Dr. S. Gangopadhyay, former Director CSIR-Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi, India, for granting study leave to pursue her PhD. Funding was provided by Commonwealth Scholarship Commission (Grant No. INCS- 2011-148).


  1. Bates J, Polak J, Jones P, Cook A (2001) The valuation of reliability for personal travel. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 37(2–3):191–229. doi: 10.1016/S1366-5545(00)00011-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. doi: 10.1287/trsc.35.3.304.10148 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cascetta E (1989) A stochastic process approach to the analysis of temporal dynamics in transportation networks. Transp Res Part B Methodol 23(1):1–17. doi: 10.1016/0191-2615(89)90019-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cascetta E, Cantarella GE (1991) A day-to-day and within-day dynamic stochastic assignment model. Transp Res Part A Gen 25(5):277–291. doi: 10.1016/0191-2607(91)90144-F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ceder A (2007) Public transit planning and operation—theory, modelling and practice, Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Cepeda M, Cominetti R, Florian M (2006) A frequency-based assignment model for congested transit networks with strict capacity constraints: characterization and computation of equilibria. Transp Res Part B Methodol 40(6):437–459. doi: 10.1016/j.trb.2005.05.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chriqui C, Robillard P (1975) Common bus lines. Transp Sci 9(2):115–121. doi: 10.1287/trsc.9.2.115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cominetti R, Correa J (2001) Common-lines and passenger assignment in congested transit networks. Transp Sci 35(3):250–267. doi: 10.1287/trsc. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Cea CJ, Fernandez JE (1989) Transit assignment to minimal routes: an efficient new algorithm. Traffic Eng Control 30(10):491–494Google Scholar
  10. De Cea CJ, Fernández E (1993) Transit assignment for congested public transport systems: an equilibrium model. Transp Sci 27(2):133–147. doi: 10.1287/trsc.27.2.133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Cea CJ, Bunster J, Zubleta L, Florian M (1988) Optimal strategies and optimal routes in public transit assignment models: an empirical comparison. Traffic Eng Control 29(10):520–526Google Scholar
  12. Gentile G, Nguyen S, Pallottino S (2005) Route choice on transit networks with online information at stops. Transp Sci 39(3):289–297. doi: 10.1287/trsc.1040.0109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackson WB, Jucker JV (1982) An empirical study of travel time variability and travel choice behavior. Transp Sci 16(4):460–475. doi: 10.1287/trsc.16.4.460 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marguier PHJ, Ceder A (1984) Passenger waiting strategies for overlapping bus routes. Transp Sci 18(3):207–230. doi: 10.1287/trsc.18.3.207 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nguyen S, Pallottino S (1988) Equilibrium traffic assignment for large scale transit networks. Eur J Oper Res 37(2):176–186. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(88)90327-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schmoecker JD (2006) Dynamic capacity constrained transit assignment. Dissertation, University of LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Seetharaman P (2015) Relaibility based disaggregate stocahstic process models with strict capacity constraint in congested transit networks. PhD Dissertation, University of Leeds, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Spiess H, Florian M (1989) Optimal strategies: a new assignment model for transit networks. Transp Res Part B Methodol 23(2):83–102. doi: 10.1016/0191-2615(89)90034-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Szeto WY, Solayappan M, Jiang Y (2011) Reliability-based transit assignment for congested stochastic transit networks. Comput Aided Civ Infrastruct Eng 26(4):311–326. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8667.2010.00680.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Szeto WY, Jiang Y, Wong KI, Solayappan M (2013) Reliability-based stochastic transit assignment with capacity constraints: formulation and solution method. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 35:286–304. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2011.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Teklu F (2008a) A Markov process model for capacity-constrained transit assignment. Dissertation, University of Leeds, UKGoogle Scholar
  22. Teklu F (2008b) A stochastic process approach for frequency-based transit assignment with strict capacity constraints. Netw Spat Econ 8(2–3):225–240. doi: 10.1007/s11067-007-9046-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Transport For London (2011) Accessed 19 Dec 2014
  24. Watling DP (2006) User equilibrium traffic network assignment with stochastic travel times and late arrival penalty. Eur J Oper Res 175(3):1539–1556. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2005.02.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wu JH, Florian M, Marcotte P (1994) Transit equilibrium assignment: a model and solution algorithms. Transp Sci 28(3):193–203. doi: 10.1287/trsc.28.3.193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Transport Planning DivisionCSIR-Central Road Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations