2003
DOI: 10.1023/b:jmma.0000020426.22501.c1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Capacity Constrained Transit Assignment with Common Lines

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
58
0
1

Year Published

2008
2008
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 111 publications
(61 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
58
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…On the other hand, Cominetti and Correa (2001) and Cepeda et al (2006) model waiting time as inversely proportional to the effective frequency, which is a function of the actual frequency that decreases with the occupancy rate of buses upstream of a bus stop. The assignment model of Kurauchi et al (2003) introduces that passengers may be risk-averse in their behaviour regarding what line or service to use, and therefore, be more prone to choose routes in which occupancy levels are lower, as a way to reduce the chance of failing to board a bus (for the effect of sitting and standing probabilities on route choice, see Section 2.6). In real-world applications, the increase in waiting time due to capacity constraints has been considered in the estimation of public transport load and demand in large scale scenarios including London (Department of Transport, 1989;Maier, 2011), Winnipeg, Stockholm and Santiago de Chile (Florian et al, 2005), Los Angeles and Sydney (Davidson et al, 2011) and San Francisco (Zorn et al, 2012).…”
Section: Effect On Waiting Timementioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, Cominetti and Correa (2001) and Cepeda et al (2006) model waiting time as inversely proportional to the effective frequency, which is a function of the actual frequency that decreases with the occupancy rate of buses upstream of a bus stop. The assignment model of Kurauchi et al (2003) introduces that passengers may be risk-averse in their behaviour regarding what line or service to use, and therefore, be more prone to choose routes in which occupancy levels are lower, as a way to reduce the chance of failing to board a bus (for the effect of sitting and standing probabilities on route choice, see Section 2.6). In real-world applications, the increase in waiting time due to capacity constraints has been considered in the estimation of public transport load and demand in large scale scenarios including London (Department of Transport, 1989;Maier, 2011), Winnipeg, Stockholm and Santiago de Chile (Florian et al, 2005), Los Angeles and Sydney (Davidson et al, 2011) and San Francisco (Zorn et al, 2012).…”
Section: Effect On Waiting Timementioning
confidence: 99%
“…and their values are shown in Marcotte and Nguyen 1998, Cominetti and Correa 2001, Kurauchi et al 2003, Cepeda et al 2006, Schmöcker et al 2008, Leurent and Benezech 2011. This behavioural assumption implies that no waiting priority is respected and, in case of oversaturation, all passengers waiting at a stop have the same probability to board the next carrier to approach (provided the carrier is attractive).…”
Section: Background Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, during peak-hours passengers often experience an over-saturation waiting time at stops, because they are not able to board the first vehicle of their choice set that arrives. The queue of those who remain at the stop may also increase passenger congestion for subsequent vehicle arrivals, and thus lead to great Level Of Service (LOS) variations that cannot be properly captured by static models, even when capacity constraints are considered [7][8][9]11].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While strategy-based transit assignment with capacity constraints has been treated in a static framework [7][8][9]11], only few dynamic models exist [10]. Moreover, previous work has dealt with capacity constraints in FB transit assignment with hyperpaths, either assuming that the extra waiting may affect the users' perception of service frequency, or that crowding may increase the perceived cost of travelling through the fail-to-board probability.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation