Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between ad-hoc demand responsive and conventional transit: a simulation study

  • Case Study and Application
  • Published:
Public Transport Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. http://www.splittechnology.com/.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang S, Yu W (1996) Comparison of subsidized fixed-and flexible-route bus systems. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1557:15–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charypar D, Nagel K (2005) Generating complete all-day activity plans with genetic algorithms. Transportation 32(4):369–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fu L (2002) A simulation model for evaluating advanced dial-a-ride paratransit systems. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 36(4):291–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häll C, Högberg M, Lundgren J (2012) A modeling system for simulation of dial-a-ride services. Public Transp 4(1):17–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronald N, Thompson R, Winter S (2015b) Simulating demand-responsive transportation: a review of agent-based approaches. Transp Rev 35(4):404–421

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work has been supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council (LP120200130).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Infrastructure Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, 3010, Australia

    Zahra Navidi & Stephan Winter

  2. Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, John St, Hawthorn, VIC, 3122, Australia

    Nicole Ronald

Authors
  1. Zahra Navidi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicole Ronald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephan Winter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zahra Navidi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12469-017-0173-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation