Bus network structure and mobility pattern: A monocentric analytical approach on a grid street layout

Abstract

This study discusses which transit network structure is the best option to serve urban mobility. As a consequence of the evolution of urban form, cities have undergone a process of dispersion of their activities that has caused a change in mobility needs in the last few decades. Mobility networks and services should progressively adapt to the new demand patterns, especially the bus transit network, which has more flexibility to absorb the changes. We compare four base transit network structures: a radial scheme, a direct trip-based network, and a transfer-based system by means of either a complete grid or a hybrid structure. An analytical model is used to estimate the behavior of these structures for idealized monocentric mobility patterns with several degrees of concentration. The purpose is to determine the right range of situations for the applicability of each bus transit structure, and to determine guidelines about the transit network planning process. It turns out that the best structure is not always the same, and depends on the mobility spatial pattern. A radial network is the best alternative in very concentrated cities; however, a direct trip-based system is more suitable for intermediate degrees of dispersion. A transferbased structure is the best option when the activities are more decentralized. Nevertheless, the decentralization degree that justifies a specific transit structure is not constant. This degree depends on the characteristics of the city, transport technology and users.

Network Analysis of the Tel Aviv Mass Transit Plan

“…In recent years, the optimal transit design evolved to city-level network with different urban structures and network representations [2,11]. Fielbaum et al [11] presented a model with an urban structure of one CBD and surrounding subcenters.…”

Diseño de redes de autobús frente a la dispersión de la movilidad urbana

“…En este artículo se presenta directamente la formulación para ambas estructuras. Una explicación más detallada puede encontrarse en Badia et al (2016). Otros parámetros de entrada del modelo que aparecen en la formulación son los vinculados a la circulación y los tiempos en parada: velocidad de circulación (km/h), tiempo por realizar una parada τ (s) y el tiempo de embarque por pasajero τ' (s).…”

Comparison of Bus Network Structures in Face of Urban Dispersion for a Ring-Radial City

“…The former defended transfer-based structures due to the increasing urban sprawl, while the latter considered that the most suitable solution was still a network focused on the traditional center since that center remained as the main focus of demand. Recently, more complete formulations have been developed in Badia et al (2016) and Fielbaum et al (2016) to answer the same question. Although they work with different methodologies, their final objective is the same: to create a tool to help make strategic decisions about the most efficient network structure depending on the evolution of the urban form.…”

“…These last two papers (Badia et al 2016;Fielbaum et al 2016) work with general outlines of the urban form where different degrees of demand dispersion are represented. For their simplified cities, different network structures are compared to determine the most suitable solution in a city with a specific degree of dispersion.…”

“…How the demand is distributed among the different nodes defines the level of decentralization. On the other hand, Badia et al (2016) work with a city as a continuous area where the size of a central attractant zone, which is the zone where all the destinations are located, determines the mobility pattern for a specific degree of dispersion. With this city representation, the model includes the access cost in the comparison of network structures, which is omitted in Fielbaum et al (2016).…”