Abstract
Considering the sprawl of cities, conventional public transport with fixed route and fixed schedule becomes less efficient and desirable every day. However, emerging technologies in computation and communication are facilitating more adaptive types of public transport systems, such as demand responsive transport that operates according to real-time demand. It is crucial to study the feasibility and advantages of these novel systems before implementation to prevent failure and financial loss. In this work, an extensive comparison of demand responsive transport and conventional public transport is provided by incorporating a dynamic routing algorithm into an agent-based traffic simulation. The results show that replacing conventional public transport with demand responsive transport will improve the mobility by decreasing the perceived travel time by passengers without any extra cost under certain circumstances. The simulation results are confirmed for different forms of networks, including a real-world network proving the potential of demand responsive transport to solve the challenge of underutilised conventional public transport in suburban areas with low transport demand.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arnott R, Palma AD, Lindsey R (1993) A structural model of peak-period congestion: a traffic bottleneck with elastic demand. Am Econ Rev 83(1):161–179
Atasoy B, Ikeda T, Song X, Ben-Akiva ME (2015) The concept and impact analysis of a flexible mobility on demand system. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 56:373–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.04.009
Australian Transport Council (2006) National guidelines for transport system management in Australia: Part 4 Urban Transport
Beirão G, Sarsfield Cabral J (2007) Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: a qualitative study. Transp Policy 14(6):478–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.04.009
Berbeglia G, Cordeau JF, Laporte G (2010) Dynamic pickup and delivery problems. Eur J Oper Res 202(1):8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.04.024
Brake J, Nelson JD (2007) A case study of flexible solutions to transport demand in a deregulated environment. J Transp Geogr 15(4):262–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2006.08.006
Brake J, Nelson JD, Wright S (2004) Demand responsive transport: towards the emergence of a new market segment. J Transp Geogr 12(4):323–337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2004.08.011
Brake J, Mulley C, Nelson JD, Wright S (2007) Key lessons learned from recent experience with flexible transport services. Transp Policy 14(6):458–466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.09.001
Chang S, Yu W (1996) Comparison of subsidized fixed-and flexible-route bus systems. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1557:15–20
Charypar D, Nagel K (2005) Generating complete all-day activity plans with genetic algorithms. Transportation 32(4):369–397
Charypar D, Axhausen K, Nagel K (2007) Event-Driven Queue-Based Traffic Flow Microsimulation. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2003:35–40. https://doi.org/10.3141/2003-05
Ciari F, Balmer M, Axhausen KW (2009) Large scale use of collective taxis: a multi-agent approach. In: The 12th international conference on travel behaviour research, Jaipur, India
Cordeau J, Laporte G (2003) The dial-a-ride problem (DARP): variants, modeling issues and algorithms. Q J Belg Fr Ital Oper Res Soc 1(2):89–101
Cordeau JF, Laporte G (2007) The dial-a-ride problem: models and algorithms. Ann Oper Res 153(1):29–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-007-0170-8
Currie G (2007) Demand Responsive Transit Development Program Design. Institute of Transport Studies Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Tech. rep
De Jong W, Vogels J, van Wijk K, Cazemier O (2011) The key factors for providing successful public transport in low-density areas in The Netherlands. Res Transp Bus Manag 2:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2011.07.002
Deflorio F, Chiara BD, Murro A (2002) Simulation and performance of DRTS in a realistic environment. In: Proceedings of the 13th mini-Euro conference handling uncertainty in the analysis of traffic and transportation systems and the 9th meeting of the Euro working group on transportation intermodality, sustainability and intelligent transport systems, pp 622–628
Dessouky M, Rahimi M, Weidner M (2003) Jointly optimizing cost, service, and environmental performance in demand-responsive transit scheduling. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 8(6):433–465. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(03)00043-9
Diana M, Quadrifoglio L, Pronello C (2007) Emissions of demand responsive services as an alternative to conventional transit systems. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 12(3):183–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2007.01.009
Diana M, Quadrifoglio L, Pronello C (2009) A methodology for comparing distances traveled by performance-equivalent fixed-route and demand responsive transit services. Transp Plan Technol 32(4):377–399
Dowling R, Skabardonis A, Alexiadis V (2004) Traffic analysis toolbox volume III: guidelines for applying traffic microsimulation modeling software. Tech. rep., Dowling Associates, Inc
Dubernet T, Rieser-Schüssler N, Axhausen KW (2013) Using a Multi-agent Simulation Tool to Estimate the Carpooling Potential. In: 92nd annual meeting of the transportation research board,, Washington DC, USA
Edwards D, Watkins K (2013) Comparing fixed-route and demand-responsive feeder transit systems in real-world settings. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2352:128–135
Enoch M, Potter S, Parkhurst G, Smith M (2006) Why do demand responsive transport systems fail? In: Transportation Research Board 85th Annual Meeting, Washington DC, USA
Errico F, Crainic TG, Malucelli F, Nonato M (2013) A survey on planning semi-flexible transit systems: methodological issues and a unifying framework. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 36:324–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.08.010
Ferreira L, Charles P, Tether C (2007) Evaluating flexible transport solutions. Transp Plan Technol 30(2–3):249–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060701395501
Fu L (2002) A simulation model for evaluating advanced dial-a-ride paratransit systems. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 36(4):291–307
Häll C, Högberg M, Lundgren J (2012) A modeling system for simulation of dial-a-ride services. Public Transp 4(1):17–37
Helsinki Regional Transport Authority (2016) Kutsuplus final report
Hensher D, Stopher P, Bullock P (2003) Service quality developing a service quality index in the provision of commercial bus contracts. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 37(6):499–517
Horn MET (2002) Multi-modal and demand-responsive passenger transport systems: a modelling framework with embedded control systems. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 36(2):167–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(00)00043-4
Lennon S (2008) Review of Victorian Taxi Costs. Tech. rep, Essential Services Commission
Li X, Quadrifoglio L (2010) Feeder transit services: choosing between fixed and demand responsive policy. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 18(5):770–780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2009.05.015
Maciejewski M (2016) Dynamic transport services, chap 23. In: Horni A, Nagel K, Axhausen KW (eds) The multi-agent transport simulation MATSim. Ubiquity, London, pp 145–152
Marković N, Nair R, Schonfeld P, Miller-Hooks E, Mohebbi M (2015) Optimizing dial-a-ride services in Maryland: benefits of computerized routing and scheduling. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 55:156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.01.011
NavidiKashani Z, Ronald N, Winter S (2016) Comparing demand responsive and conventional public transport in a low demand context. In: First International Workshop on Context-Aware Smart Cities and Intelligent Transport Systems., Sydney
Nelson JD, Wright S, Masson B, Ambrosino G, Naniopoulos A (2010) Recent developments in flexible transport services. Res Transp Econ 29(1):243–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2010.07.030
Nielsen G (2005) HiTrans best practice guide: development of principles and strategies for introducing high quality public transport in medium sized cities and regions. 2. Public transport-planning the networks. HiTrans
O’Sullivan D, Perry GLW (2013) Spatial simulation: exploring pattern and process. Wiley, Hoboken
Palmer K, Dessouky M, Abdelmaguid T (2004) Impacts of management practices and advanced technologies on demand responsive transit systems. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 38(7):495–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2004.05.002
Palmer K, Dessouky M, Zhou Z (2008) Factors influencing productivity and operating cost of demand responsive transit. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 42(3):503–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2007.12.003
Pillac V, Gendreau M, Guéret C, Medaglia AL (2013) A review of dynamic vehicle routing problems. Eur J Oper Res 225(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.08.015
Quadrifoglio L, Li X (2009) A methodology to derive the critical demand density for designing and operating feeder transit services. Transp Res Part B Methodol 43:922–935
Quadrifoglio L, Dessouky M, Ordóñez F (2008) A simulation study of demand responsive transit system design. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 42(4):718–737
Ronald N, Thompson R, Haasz J, Winter S (2013) Determining the viability of a demand-responsive transport system under varying demand scenarios. In: Proceedings of the Sixth ACM SIGSPATIAL international workshop on computational transportation science—IWCTS ’13. ACM, New York, pp 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2533828.2533831
Ronald N, Thompson R, Winter S (2015a) A comparison of constrained and ad-hoc demand-responsive transportation systems. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2536:44–51
Ronald N, Thompson R, Winter S (2015b) Simulating demand-responsive transportation: a review of agent-based approaches. Transp Rev 35(4):404–421
Ronald N, Thompson RG, Winter S (2015c) Modelling ad-hoc DRT over many days: a preliminary study. In: 21st international congress on modelling and simulation (MODSIM), pp 1175–1181
Wardman M (2004) Public transport values of time. Transp Policy 11:363–377
Wenli G, Balmer M, Miller EJ (2010) Comparisons between MATSim and EMME / 2 on the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area Network. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2197:118–128
Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council (LP120200130).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Navidi, Z., Ronald, N. & Winter, S. Comparison between ad-hoc demand responsive and conventional transit: a simulation study. Public Transp 10, 147–167 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-017-0173-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-017-0173-z