The Theory of Transit Assignment: Basic Modelling Frameworks

  • Guido Gentile
  • Michael Florian
  • Younes Hamdouch
  • Oded Cats
  • Agostino Nuzzolo
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, the different basic assumptions for the development of assignment models to transit networks (frequency-based, schedule-based) are presented together with the possible approaches to the simulation of the dynamic system (steady state, macroscopic flows, agent-based).

References

  1. Alfa AS, Chen MY (1995) Temporal distribution of public transport demand during the peak period. Eur J Oper Res 83:137–153CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Amin-Naseri MR, Baradaran V (2014) Accurate estimation of average waiting time in public transportation systems. Transp Sci 49:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreasson I. (1976) A method for the analysis of transit networks. In: Roubens M (ed) Proceedings of the 2nd European congress on operations research, North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Balmer M, Rieser M, Meister K, Charypar D, Lefebvre N, Nagel K (2008) MATSim-T: architecture and simulation times. In: Bazzan ALC, Klügl F (ed) Multi-agent systems for traffic and transportation engineering. Information science reference, Hershey, pp 57–78Google Scholar
  5. Bellei G, Gentile G, Papola N (2005) A within-day dynamic traffic assignment model for urban road networks. Transp Res B 39:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellei G, Gentile G, Meschini L, Papola N (2006) A demand model with departure time choice for within-day dynamic traffic assignment. Eur J Oper Res 175:1557–1576CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellman R (1958) On a routing problem. Q Appl Math 16:87–90MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowman LA, Turnquist MA (1981) Service frequency, schedule reliability and passenger wait times at transit stops. Transportation Research A 15:465–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cantarella GE (1997) A general fixed-point approach to multimode multi-user equilibrium assignment with elastic demand. Transp Sci 31:107–128CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Cantarella GE, Cascetta E (1995) Dynamic processes and equilibrium in transportation networks: towards a unifying theory. Transp Sci 29:305–329CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Cats O (2013) Multi-agent transit operations and assignment model. Proc Comput Sci 19:809–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cats O, Burghout W, Toledo T, Kousopoulos HN (2010) Mesoscopic modeling of bus public transportation. Transp Res Rec 2188:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cats O, Kousopoulos HN, Burghout W, Toledo T (2011) Effect of real-time transit information on dynamic path choice of passengers. Transp Res Rec 2217:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chriqui C, Robillard P (1975) Common bus lines. Transp Sci 9:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Cea J, Fernandez JE (1989) Transit assignment to minimal routes: an efficient new algorithm. Traffic Eng Control 30:491–494Google Scholar
  16. Dial RB (1967) Transit pathfinder algorithm. Highw Res Board 205:67–85Google Scholar
  17. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer Math 1:269–271CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Ettema D, Jong K, Timmermans H, Bakema A (2007) PUMA: multi-agent modelling of urban systems. In: Koomen E et al (eds) Modelling land-use change, pp 237–258Google Scholar
  19. Fearnside K, Draper DP (1971) Public transport assignment—a new approach. Traffic Eng Control 13:298–299Google Scholar
  20. Friedrich M, Hofsaess I, Wekeck S (2001) Timetable-based transit assignment using branch and bound techniques. Transp Res Rec 1752:100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallo G, Longo G, Nguyen S, Pallottino S (1993) Directed hypergraphs and applications. Discrete Appl Math 42:177–201CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Gao W, Balmer M, Miller EJ (2010) Comparisons between MATSim and EMME/2 on the greater Toronto and Hamilton area network. Transp Res Rec 2197:118–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gentile G (2010) The general link transmission model for dynamic network loading and a comparison with the due algorithm. In: Immers LGH, Tampere CMJ, Viti F (eds) New developments in transport planning: advances in Dynamic Traffic Assignment (selected papers from the DTA 2008 conference, Leuven). Transport economics, management and policy series. Edward Elgar Publishing, MA, pp 153–178Google Scholar
  24. Gentile G (2015) Using the general link transmission model in a dynamic traffic assignment to simulate congestion on urban networks. Transp Res Proc 5:66–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gentile G, Papola A (2006) An alternative approach to route choice simulation: the sequential models. In: Proceedings of the European transport conference, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
  26. Gentile G, Meschini L, Papola N (2005) Spillback congestion in dynamic traffic assignment: a macroscopic flow model with time-varying bottlenecks. Transp Res B 41:1114–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hickman MD, Bernstein DH (1997) Transit service and path choice models in stochastic and time-dependent networks. Transp Sci 31:129–146CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Jolliffe JK, Hutchinson TP (1975) A behavioral explanation of the association between bus and passenger arrivals at a bus stop. Transp Sci 9:248–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larson RC, Odoni AR (1981) Urban operations research. Prentice-Hall, Englewoods CliffsGoogle Scholar
  30. Last A, Leak SE (1976) Transept: a bus model. Traffic Eng Control 17:14–20Google Scholar
  31. Le Clercq F (1972) A public transport assignment method. Traffic Eng Control 14:91–96Google Scholar
  32. Meignan D, Simonin O, Koukam A (2007) Simulation and evaluation of urban bus-networks using a multiagent approach. Simul Model Pract Theory 15:659–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meschini L, Gentile G, Papola N (2007) A frequency based transit model for dynamic traffic assignment to multimodal networks. In: Allsop R, Bell MGH, Heydecker BG (eds) Proceedings of the 17th international symposium on transportation and traffic theory (ISTTT). Elsevier, London, pp 407–436Google Scholar
  34. Moller-Pedersen J (1999) Assignment model of timetable based systems (TPSCHEDULE). In: Proceedings of 27th European transportation forum, seminar F, Cambridge, England, pp 159–168Google Scholar
  35. Nguyen S, Pallottino S, Malucelli F (2001) A modeling framework for passenger assignment on a transport network with timetables. Transp Sci 35:238–249CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Nielsen OA (2000) A stochastic transit assignment model considering differences in passengers utility functions. Transp Res B 34:377–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nielsen OA (2004) A large-scale stochastic multi-class schedule-based transit model with random coefficients. In: Wilson NHM, Nuzzolo A (eds) Schedule-based dynamic transit modeling: theory and applications. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp 53–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nielsen OA, Jovicic G (1999) A large-scale stochastic timetable-based transit assignment model for route and sub-mode choices. Transp Plann Methods 434:169–184Google Scholar
  39. Nuzzolo A, Russo F (1998) A dynamic network loading model for transit services. In: Proceedings of TRAISTAN III, San Juan, Puerto RicoGoogle Scholar
  40. Nuzzolo A, Russo F, Crisalli U (2001) A doubly dynamic schedule-based assignment model for transit networks. Transp Sci 35:268–285CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Osuna E, Newell G (1972) Control strategies for an idealized public transportation system. Transp Sci 6:52–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pallottino S, Scutellà MG (1998) Shortest path algorithms in transportation models: classical and innovative aspects. In: Marcotte P, Nguyen S (eds) Equilibrium and advanced transportation modelling. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 245–281Google Scholar
  43. Salvini P, Miller EJ (2005) ILUTE: an operational prototype of a comprehensive microsimulation model of urban systems. Netw Spat Econ 5:217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sheffi Y (1984) Urban transportation networks: equilibrium analysis with mathematical programming methods. Prentice-Hall, NJGoogle Scholar
  45. Sumi T, Matsumoto Y, Miyaki Y (1990) Departure time and route choice of commuters on mass transit systems. Transp Res B 24:247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toledo T, Cats O, Burghout W, Koutsopoulos HN (2010) Mesoscopic simulation for transit operations. Transp Res C 18:896–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tong CO, Wong SC (1999) A stochastic transit assignment model using a dynamic schedule-based network. Transp Res B 33:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. TRB (2013) TCRP Report 165–Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd EditionGoogle Scholar
  49. Wahba M, Shalaby A (2005) Multiagent learning-based approach to transit assignment problem a prototype. Transp Res Rec 1926:96–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang J, Wahba M, Miller EJ (2010) A comparison of an agent-based transit assignment procedure (MILATRAS) with conventional approaches city of Toronto transit network. In: Proceedings of the 89th transportation research board annual meeting, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  51. Watling D (1999) Stability of the stochastic equilibrium assignment problem: a dynamical systems approach. Transp Res B 33:281–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yperman I (2007) The link transmission model for dynamic network loading. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Gentile
    • 1
  • Michael Florian
    • 2
  • Younes Hamdouch
    • 4
  • Oded Cats
    • 3
  • Agostino Nuzzolo
    • 5
  1. 1.DICEA - Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e AmbientaleSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.CIRRELTUniversity of MontrealSuccursale Centre-ville MontréalCanada
  3. 3.Department of Transport and PlanningDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  4. 4.College of Business & EconomicsUnited Arab Emirates UniversityAl AinUnited Arab Emirates
  5. 5.Department of Enterprise EngineeringUniversity of Rome Tor VergataRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations