MA - Hartl Thesis PDF

Master Thesis Nr.
Route choice in macroscopic and

microscopic assignment models
for public transport
Hartl
Author: Maximilian Hartl, BSc.
Supervisors: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Markus Friedrich

Dipl.-Ing. Matthias Schmaus
October 2013
Universitt Stuttgart
Institut fr Straen- und Verkehrswesen
Lehrstuhl fr Verkehrsplanung und Verkehrsleittechnik
Abstract
Abstract
A task of traffic engineers is to investigate the impact of traffic demand on past,
present, and future transport networks while considering social, ecological, and
economic issues. The challenge in transport planning is to find the right balance
between all aspects. To solve this optimization problem, methods like transit
assignment models have been developed to support the traffic engineer to analyze the
current deficiencies and design better public transport networks. Depending on the
purpose of planning, the requirements differ among the transit assignment models
according to the type of public transport system modeled, supply and demand
representation, level of details, input and output values, reliability and effort. Each
model has strengths and weaknesses, and suggests specific assumptions about the
information provided to the travelers. Consequently, the results of the models vary.
The aim of this thesis is to compare route choice in the macroscopic schedule-based
assignment in VISUM and microscopic simulation-based assignment in BusMezzo, and
thus giving transport planners a good understanding of the model characteristics by
explaining the underlying modeling principles, comparing route choice behavior, and
evaluating the assignment results.
The model comparison done in this thesis brings light to
how the effect of overcrowded vehicles is represented in both models,
how passengers are distributed in the network due to capacity restrictions and
how different degrees of information are affect assignment results.
The challenge of comparing two transit assignment models, which are structured quite
differently, is to use an appropriate network. The network example needs to be as
simple as possible but still covering all relevant phenomena. Before comparing the
models, it is necessary to define the initial conditions: what is actually comparable and
which level of similarities are achievable? The main focus lies not on simplifying the
models as much as possible in order to reproduce the same results. Rather, it is more
important to ensure that the same starting condition is used to evaluate the output data
and point out the difference of the models. Transport supply of the schedule-based
assignment in VISUM is modeled deterministically based on the assumption that all
passengers have the knowledge of a reliable timetable. In BusMezzo, however,
transport supply is not deterministic, but based on a stochastic simulation-based
model. To make the models in some way comparable BusMezzo is forced to have a
deterministic transport supply. This is done by assuming that all agents have real-time
information of the entire network. This accommodates for the knowledge of the reliable
timetable used in the schedule-based transit assignment model in VISUM.
To analyze the differences of the two models, first the deterministic state with the same
degree of information is compared. Then, different sets of scenarios and subsets are
VuV 2013
Abstract
defined to investigate the influence of varying the information degree provided to

agents as well as the effects of capacity restriction and the feeling of discomfort from
crowding for the assignment results.
To capture the effect of overcrowded vehicles BusMezzo uses an absolute limitation of
capacity. In contrast, the schedule-based transit assignment model in VIUSM describes
the phenomenon of overcrowded vehicles by a crowding function. It describes the
feeling of discomfort from crowding and adds additional impedance to the connection
mainly depending on the ratio of volume to capacity multiplied by the travel time of the
vehicle journey item. As a result, this implementation is not able to capture the
limitation of capacity appropriately since travelers are generally always able to board a
vehicle. This is based on the macroscopic structure of travel demand and is a
characteristic of the schedule-based transit assignment model. Therefore, it is
important to adapt the congestion function in a way that the level of unattractiveness
rises to an adequate level and travelers avoid this connection. The option to model the
behavior of public transit participants under congestion conditions is not properly
considered at the current state of implementation.
A major difference between the two models is the way of distributing the demand on
the network. The schedule-based transit assignment model first looks for connections
in the network and subsequently filters all reasonable connections. It assigns
impedance, depending on the impedance function, to the connections and calculates
the distribution of the demand according to the probabilistic distribution model as a
single shot decision. BusMezzo does not estimate the impedance of connections.
Instead it filters all reasonable paths as foundation of the dynamically adaptive decision
process. Once the path set is calculated, each traveler faces a sequence of decisions
while traveling through the network. The selected connections are not an input for the
choice model, but instead they are the result of the dynamic sequence of decisions.
Along the way, travelers make several decisions, for example connections boarding
and alighting decisions, to adapt their behavior to the dynamic network conditions. At
the first glance, this feature is a major strength compared to the static schedule-based
transit assignment model and allows implementations of real-time information and
holding strategies to improve the network performance by regulating the departure
time. However, in special cases of high-frequented lines, BusMezzo overestimates the
distribution of travelers. Obviously, a high-frequented line approaches more often than
a less frequented line and travelers need to face a decision more often. Each
alternative holds a certain probability. The traveler chooses an actual alternative by
picking a randomly generated number and sets it in correlation to the probability of the
alternative. Since all provided alternatives hold a certain probability, there is a chance
that travelers choose this less attractive option. If this decision needs to be faced
several times in a row, the amount of travelers increases, taking a less attractive line in
favor of a high-frequented line. This shortcoming needs to be compensated by a
logical, dynamically adaptive filtering rule.
VuV 2013
Abstract
Furthermore, increasing the demand, decreasing the vehicle capacity or reducing the
frequency in order to enforce capacity constraints in BusMezzo significantly raises the
average total travel time because of denied boarding. The schedule-based transit
assignment model covers crowding effects by a using crowding function, but the effect
is marginal on the passengers travel time, because the schedule-based transit
assignment model optimizes the total impedance value to a stochastic equilibrium.
The comparison between the BusMezzo and the schedule-based transit assignment
model clearly shows the strengths and shortcomings of both model classes.
Furthermore, it contributes to the understanding of the basic fundamentals of each
model structure and highlights the right of existence. The appropriate application of the
models strongly depends on the scope of work. The decision which model fits best to
the assignment needs to be considered by the traffic planner and his/her experience.
The comparison also shows that more scientific work needs to be done to compromise
the shortcoming (e.g. crowding function and the limitation of congestion, overestimation
to high-frequented lines, and travel time calculations) to an adequate level of
acceptance to approximate the real behavior of travelers.
VuV 2013
Zusammenfassung
Zusammenfassung
Die Aufgabe eines Verkehrsingenieurs ist den Einfluss von vergangenen,
gegenwrtigen
und
zuknftigen
Ereignissen
auf
das
Verhalten
von
Verkehrsteilnehmern zu untersuchen. Die Herausforderung fr die zielorientierte
Lsungsfindung liegt in der Bercksichtigung von sozialen, konomischen und
kologischen Gesichtspunkten. Um die Lsungsfindung zu erleichtern, sind Methoden
wie Verkehrsumlegungsmodelle entwickelt worden. Abhngig vom Planungszweck
unterscheiden sich die Anforderungen an das Modell erheblich in Bezug auf den Typ,
die Darstellung von Angebot und Nachfrage, Detailierungsgrad, Eingangs- und
Ausgangsgren, Zuverlssigkeit und Performance. Jedes Modell besitzt Strken und
Schwchen und trifft unterschiedliche Annahmen ber die Informiertheit, die dem
Reisenden zu Verfgung gestellt wird. In Folge dessen unterscheiden sich die
Ergebnisse.
In der Masterarbeit wird die Routenwahl des mikroskopischen, simulationsbasierten
Verkehrsmodell BusMezzo mit der makroskopischen, fahrplanfeinen Umlegung,
implementiert in der Software VISUM, verglichen. Das Ziel der Arbeit ist dem
Verkehrsplaner ein Verstndnis darber zu geben wie sich die zwei Modelle im
direkten Vergleich Verhalten, wo ihre Schwchen und Strken liegen und wie die
Defizite kompensiert werden knnten.
Der Modelvergleich der Arbeit behandelt vordergrndig
wie der Effekt von berfllten Verkehrsmittel in beiden Modellen dargestellt wird,
wie Reisende im Netz unter Beachtung von Kapazittsbeschrnkungen verteilt
werden und
wie die Informiertheit von Reisenden die Umlegungsergebnisse beeinflussen.
Eine Herausforderung beim Vergleich von zwei unterschiedlich strukturierten Modellen
liegt in der Verwendung eines adquaten Beispielnetzes. Das Netz muss so einfach
wie mglich sein, dennoch aber alle untersuchungsrelevanten Phnomene abdecken.
Bevor die Modelle verglichen werden knnen, ist es notwendig die Ausgangssituation
zu definieren, was verglichen werden kann und welche Gemeinsamkeiten sich die
Modelle teilen. Der Anspruch liegt nicht darin, die Modelle soweit zu vereinfachen bis
sie die gleichen Ergebnisse reproduzieren. Vielmehr geht es darum, die gleichen
Bedingungen zu schaffen, um die Modelle vergleichen zu knnen.
Die Angebotsseite der fahrplanfeinen Umlegung ist deterministisch modelliert unter der
Annahme, dass alle Reisende mit zuverlssiger Fahrplaninformation ihre
Verbindungswahl treffen. Das steht im Gegensatz zum simulationsbasierten,
stochastischen Modell BusMezzo. Um die Modelle vergleichbar zu machen, mssen in
BusMezzo auf der Angebotsseite die zuflligen Einflsse eliminiert werden. Wenn sich
BusMezzo deterministisch verhlt, mit gleichzeitiger netzweiter Echtzeitinformation fr
VuV 2013
Zusammenfassung
alle Reisenden, fhrt das zu zuverlssiger Fahrplankenntnis und erfllt die Ansprche
an die Vergleichbarkeit.
Der Vergleich der Modelle beginnt auf der deterministischen Ebene mit der gleichen
Bereitstellung von Information. Anschlieend werden unterschiedliche Sets und
Szenarios entwickelt, um u.a. den Einfluss von Kapazittseinschrnkungen und dem
Einfluss von Informiertheit zu untersuchen.
Kapazittsengpsse in Form von berfllten Fahrzeugen werden in BusMezzo durch
eine absolute Beschrnkung der Platzanzahl erreicht. Im Gegensatz dazu steht der
Ansatz der fahrplanfeinen Umlegung. Es beschreibt das Gefhl des Unbehagens durch
berfllung mittels einer Kapazittsbeschrnkungsfunktion. Dabei verringert sich die
Attraktivitt der Verbindung je voller das Verkehrsmittel ist. Die Attraktivitt, auch
Widerstand genannt, hngt unter anderem vom Auslastungsgrad multipliziert mit der
Dauer des Fahrplanfahrtelements ab. Diese Art der Implementierung ist nicht fhig
Kapazittsbeschrnkungen mit dem richtigen Ma abzubilden, da Reisende
grundstzlich immer in der Lage sind einzusteigen. Das liegt in der Abbildung der
Nachfrage der fahrplanfeinen Umlegung. Deswegen ist es wichtig die Funktion der
Kapazittsbeschrnkung anzupassen, damit berfllte Verbindungen nicht weiter
genutzt werden. Diese Eigenschaft ist zum derzeitigen Entwicklungsstand nicht
adquat umgesetzt.
Ein wesentlicher Unterschied zwischen den Modellen besteht in der Verteilung der
Nachfrage auf das Netz. Die fahrplanfeine Umlegung sucht erst nach mglichen
Verbindungen und filtert anschlieend die Verbindungen heraus, die am
wahrscheinlichsten unter realen Bedingungen gewhlt werden. Der Menge an
gefilterten Verbindungen wird ein Widerstand mittels einer Widerstandsfunktion
zugeordnet. Ausgehend vom Widerstand der Verbindung wird die Nachfrage mittels
eines wahrscheinlichkeitstheoretischen Verteilungsmodell als Einzelentscheidung auf
das Netz modelliert. BusMezzo berechnet keine Verbindungen, sondern filtert alle
sinnvollen Wege als Input fr den situationsangepassten Entscheidungsprozess. Jeder
Reisende trifft entlang seines Weges eine Vielzahl von Entscheidungen. Die am Ende
entstandene Verbindung ist nicht das Ergebnis einer Verbindungswahl, sondern vieler
Einzelentscheidung, angepasst an die Situation im Netz. Auf den ersten Blick ist das
ein wesentlicher Vorteil gegenber der statischen fahrplanfeinen Umlegung in VISUM.
Es erlaubt u.a. die Bereitstellung von Echtzeitinformation und die dynamische
Fahrzeugkoordinierung. In Fllen bei denen eine Linie mit einem geringem Takt einer
Linie mit hoher Taktfolge gegenbergestellt wird, berschtzt BusMezzo die Anzahl der
Reisenden zu Gunsten der Linie mit hoher Taktfolge. Im Modell whlt ein Reisender
seine (Teil-)Verbindung indem er eine Zufallszahl zieht und diese in Beziehung zur
Wahrscheinlichkeit der Alternativen setzt. Da alle verfgbaren Verbindungen eine
Wahrscheinlichkeit besitzen, besteht immer die Chance, dass Reisende die weniger
attraktive Verbindung whlen. Wenn diese Entscheidungen oft hintereinander getroffen
werden muss, erhht sich die Anzahl derjenigen, die sich fr die unattraktive,
VuV 2013
Zusammenfassung
hochfrequentierte Linie entscheiden. Diese Schwche sollte mit einer sinnvollen an die
Situation angepassten Filterungsregel kompensiert werden.
Wird die Nachfrage erhht, die Fahrzeugkapazitt verringert oder die Frequenz der
Linie reduziert, entstehen Kapazittsengpsse. Diese Engpsse wirken sich in
BusMezzo direkt auf die Reisezeit aus, da Reisende nicht in der Lage sind in das
gewnschte Fahrzeug einzusteigen und somit auf das nchste Fahrzeug warten oder
ihre Verbindungswahl berdenken mssen. Die fahrplanfeine Umlegung deckt
berfllungseffekte mit einer Kapazittsbeschrnkungsfunktion ab. Die Auswirkungen
auf die Reisezeit von Passagieren sind jedoch marginal, da das Umlegungsverfahren
den Widerstand in Netz in einem iterativen Prozess zu einem stochastischen
Gleichgewicht optimiert.
Der Vergleich zwischen BusMezzo und der fahrplanfeinen Umlegung zeigt die Vor- und
Nachteile beider Modelle in Bezug auf das verwendete Beispielnetz. Zudem trgt der
Vergleich und die Erklrung der grundlegenden implementierten Theorien zum
Verstndnis des jeweiligen Modells und ihrer Daseinsberechtigung bei. Die geeignete
Anwendung des jeweiligen Modells hngt stark vom jeweiligen Einsatzzweck ab und
muss jeweils vom Verkehrsplaner auf Grund seiner Erfahrung entschieden werden.
Der Vergleich zeigt zudem, dass mehr wissenschaftliche Arbeit ntig ist, um die
Schwachstellen der Modelle (z.B. Kapazittsbeschrnkungsfunktion zur Einschrnkung
der berfllten Verbindungen, berschtzung von hochfrequentierten Linien und
Reisezeit Berechnung) auf ein adquates Ma zu reduzieren, um das Verhalten von
Verkehrsteilnehmern bestmglich abzubilden.
VuV 2013
Selbstndigkeitserklrung
Selbstndigkeitserklrung
Hiermit erklre ich, dass ich die vorliegende Masterarbeit eigenstndig verfasst habe
und keine anderen Hilfestellungen oder Quellen als die angegebenen in Anspruch
genommen habe.
Insbesondere habe ich keinen bezahlten Dienst mit der Anfertigung der gesamten
Arbeit oder Teilen der Arbeit beauftragt.
Stuttgart, den 15.10.2013
Maximilian Hartl
VuV 2013
Glossary
Glossary
ADC
Automated Data Collection
APC
Automated Passenger Counts
ATTT
Average Total Travel Time describes the average time a

traveler spends in the network.
AVL
Automated Vehicle Location
CONNECTION
describes the spatial and time depending choice between an

OD-pair
Destination
FB
Frequency-Based
GTC
Generation Time Capacity
HDWY
Headway
INTEGER
is a number with no fractional part Z={0-2,-1,0,1,2,}
IVT
In-Vehicle Time
LINK
is defined between two nodes
LOAD
is the amount of travelers on a link/trip/connection
Model (BusMezzo or VISUM)
MNL
Multinomial Logit Model
NI
Network Indicator
NrTransfer
Number of Transfers.
NODE
starting or ending point of a link
Origin
OD-PAIR
Relation between origin and destination
PrT
Private Transport
PuT
Public Transport
SB
Schedule-Based
SCENARIO
Scenarios are a subset of a set and describes the actual model

execution
SET
A Set is a group of scenario with the same general conditions
STOP
is the location where transit users might start, transfer or

terminate their trip.
TAM
Transit Assignment Model
TRAVELER
General expression with no model relation
TRIP
refers to a single vehicle which serves one run of the schedule
TRIP SEGMENT
is defined between to stops
VoT
Value-of-Time
WalkT
Walking Time
VuV 2013
Glossary
BusMezzo Related Expressions

AGENT
Represents a single traveler in the network
BM
BusMezzo
RTI
Real-Time Information
WaitT(BM)
Waiting Time is defined as time an agent needs to transfer

between vehicles or the time between the generation process
and the departure time of the chosen vehicle at the origin stop
VISUM Related Expressions

PASSENGER
Represents the amount of travelers in the network in terms of

flows
PJT
Perceived Journey Time
SB-TAM
Schedule-Based Transit Assignment Model
VISUM
WaitT(V)
Waiting Time is defined as time a passenger needs to transfer

between vehicles at a transfer stop
VuV 2013
10
Contents
Contents
1
Introduction
13
1.1
Motivation
13
1.2
Research Goals
14
1.3
Outline of Work
14
Survey
16
2.1
Structure of the Survey
16
2.2
General Information
19
2.3
Estimation Process
20
Traffic Modeling Fundamentals
22
3.1
Traffic Model Principles
22
3.2
Private Traffic Assignment Models
25
3.3
Public Transit Assignment Models
26
3.4
Level of Information
28
3.5
Capacity Constraints
29
3.6
Stochastic or Deterministic User Equilibrium
30
Simulation-Based Transit Assignment Model
33
4.1
Mezzo
33
4.2
BusMezzo
34
4.2.1
Object Framework
34
4.2.2
Simulation Flow
35
4.2.3
Implemented Models
37
4.2.4
Dynamic Path Choice Model
40
4.2.5
49
51
5.1
Connection Search
51
5.2
Pre-Selection
52
5.3
Impedance and perceived journey time of a connection
53
5.4
Connection Choice
53
VuV 2013
11
Contents
5.5
6
Crowding Functions
54
Model Comparison
58
6.1
Classification
59
6.2
Comparable Level and Information Degree
61
6.3
Simplifications to make the models comparable
62
6.4
Travel Time Correlation
65
6.5
Example Network
65
6.6
Set and Scenario Overview
70
6.7
SET A: Unlimited and Limited Vehicle Capacity with Low Demand
74
6.8
SET B: Unlimited and Limited Vehicle Capacity with High Demand
85
6.8.1
SET B Demand Variation
89
6.9
SET D: Frequency and Vehicle Capacity Variation
91
6.10
SET C: Degree of Information
95
Conclusion
98
References
101
List of Tables
104
10 List of Figures
105
Appendix
107
VuV 2013
12
Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1
Motivation
A task of traffic engineers is to investigate the impact of traffic demand on past,

present, and future transport networks while considering social, ecological and
economic issues. The challenge in transport planning is to find the right balance
between all aspects. To solve this optimization problem, methods like transit
assignment models have been developed to support the traffic engineer to analyze the
current deficiencies and design better public transport (PuT) networks. Since the prize
of manpower constantly increase and the computing capacity steadily increases, in
terms of calculation time, transit assignment models play a more and more important
role for estimating traffic impacts. Many implemented theories in transit assignment
models are derived by observing the natural behavior of travelers. The aim of transport
models is to describe the complexity of the real world with the best possible
approximation by balancing between the degree of simplification, input quantity and the
quality of the out coming results. Thus, empirical investigations form the foundation for
most implemented theories in transit assignment models. Great efforts have been
made within the past decades to investigate the characteristic travel behavior in private
and public transport respectively the interaction of those two. Depending on the
purpose of planning, the requirements differ among the transit assignment models
according to the type of transport system modeled, supply and demand representation,
level of details, input and output values, reliability and effort. Each model has strengths
and weaknesses, and suggests specific assumptions about the information provided to
the travelers. Consequently, the results of the models vary.
Traffic assignment models form the core of any travel demand model. They model the
route choice of travelers and thus determine traffic flows on links and on public
transport line routes. Additionally, assignment models provide skim matrices describing
the service quality of a network between origin (O) and destination (D) pairs (OD-pairs).
Private and public transport networks have specific characteristics which need to be
considered in the assignment. This led to the development of a variety of models. The
various public transport assignment models replicate the transport supply, travel
demand, and travel behavior using different levels of modeling detail in representing
supply and demand. They also suggest specific assumptions about the information
provided to the travelers. Consequently, the results of the models differ. The planners
task is to apprehend the model which is most suitable to address to the existing
problem and delivers the most confidential results compared to passenger counts, for
example. Therefore, it is necessary to make the models comprehensible for transport
traffic planners and provide summarized tutorials as well as detailed model evaluations.
But any kind of transport model can always be used to assist the planner. It never
replaces the knowledge of the expert and in the end, the engineer is in charge to take
responsibility for the measurements chosen to improve the current short-comings.
VuV 2013
13
Introduction
1.2
Research Goals
The objective of the thesis is to facilitate the planners comprehension of the model
characteristics by comparing, explaining, and evaluating the route choice of the
microscopic simulation-based transit assignment model BusMezzo (BM) and the
macroscopic schedule-based transit assignment model (SB-TAM) implemented in the
software framework of VISUM.
1.3
Outline of Work
This work starts by presenting a survey in chapter 2 Survey on the estimation of the
value-of-time (VoT) for a transfer between two transit lines, as well as the willingness of
passengers to accept longer travel times when traveling in less crowded vehicles
depending on the ratio of volume to capacity. The survey is used as introductory part to
specify some of the fundamental relations between the real world and the simplified
implementations in transit assignment models.
To evaluate the models BusMezzo and the schedule-based transit assignment model
in VISUM, first the fundamentals of modern traffic simulation are outlined in chapter 3
Traffic Modeling Fundamentals. Therefore, the different model types according to the
level of aggregation (Micro-, Meso, Macroscopic) and time relation (static vs. dynamic)
are classified followed by a short description of the modeling principles for private and
public assignment models. Furthermore, the impact of information and capacity
restrictions are described. Chapter 3 closes with the definition of the deterministic and
stochastic user equilibrium.
Chapter 4 Simulation-Based Transit Assignment Model explains the principal model
structure of BusMezzo. It concentrates on the subjects of simulation flow, implemented
models, and dynamic path choice models. The latter describes in detail the choice-set
generation process followed by the path choice decision process as well as the
evaluation of alternative paths and the actual path decision. The chapter closes with a
description of real-time information (RTI) in BusMezzo.
Chapter 5 presents the principle model structure of the Schedule-Based Transit
Assignment Model. It begins with the description of the connection search, followed by
the filtering process of all reasonable connections and the calculation of the
connections impedance. Furthermore, the connection choice and the distribution of
travelers are explained. The chapter closes with an analysis of the impact of the
additionally provided capacity restriction function.
Chapter 6 Model Comparison forms the core of the work. It describes the model
classification, travel behavior aspects considered in the model, the comparable level of
the two models, the information degree provided in each model and necessary
simplifications. Additionally, it describes the travel time correlation between VISUM and
VuV 2013
14
Introduction
BusMezzo which contributes to the description of the example network. Subsequently,

an overview of all comparable parameter sets and scenarios is provided. The
comparison first outlines the model differences in the path choice model, number of
transfers (NrTransfer), and load distribution on public transport lines. Secondly, the
model behavior by increasing the demand, reducing the vehicle capacity, as well as the
frequency is analyzed. The chapter ends with the comparison of different information
levels in BusMezzo.
Chapter 7 Conclusion summarizes the accomplishments and major findings. The thesis
concludes with an evaluation of the results, outlines the strength and weaknesses of
the compared models and formulates recommendations for the application of
BusMezzo and/or the schedule-based transit assignment model in VISUM.
To facilitate the comprehension of the thesis, the term traveler is used as general
expression for somebody who travels in the network. If the characteristics of a traveler
is related to VISUM, the expression passenger, and respectively to BusMezzo the term
agent is used.
VuV 2013
15
Survey
2 Survey
The originally idea of the survey was to estimate the coefficients of the utility function,
used in the schedule-based transit assignment model and BusMezzo, in the analysis in
chapter 6. Unfortunately, it was not possible, within the limited time of the thesis, to
analyze the survey before implementing the network and running the assignments.
Therefore, the survey is used as introductory part to specify some of the fundamental
relations between the real world and the simplified implementations in transit
assignment models.
Many implemented theories in transit assignment models are derived by observing the
natural behavior of travelers. The observation is transferred into a mathematical
approach to simulate and, especially, to forecast travelers behavior for planning
purposes. One of the major parameters, besides travel time, which influences the route
choice in public transport, is the transfer rate. Since transit assignment models are not
able to reflect all influencing parameters in a one-to-one correlation, parameters are
transferred into impedance. The impedance is mainly represented through the unit
time. This means that all influencing parameters with or without a correlation to time
are transferred to a value-of-time. This is also true for the number of transfers. Since
transferring has no direct relation to time, surveys try to estimate the value-of-time
which expresses to what amount travelers would accept to travel with a more time
consuming connection instead of transferring once. This kind of survey is called stated
preference survey (see (Hicks & Turner, 1999) for details). The method of stated
preference tries to derive the value-of-time by providing a choice of several discrete
options to the respondents. The aim of the survey is to define the coefficient of the
parameter transfer rate for public transport within a travel time shorter than one hour.
Another focus of the survey is to allocate the importance of overcrowded vehicles. It
follows the same principles but analyses the dependency of the value-of-time
depending on the ratio between volume and capacity.
This chapter first presents the structure of the survey. Secondly, the general
information (Gender, Age etc.) of the respondents is analyzed. Finally, the estimation
process is explained and the results are presented.
2.1
Structure of the Survey
The survey is designed in the framework of the web-platform SurveyMonkey and was
conducted in German. The link to participate in this survey was open to public access
for about ten weeks and started in July 2013. The link was available on the homepage
of the Department for Transport Planning and Traffic Engineering of the Institute for
Road and Transport Science, University of Stuttgart and was also passed to the
authors personal mailing list. In total 243, people responded to the survey. About 90%
VuV 2013
16
Survey
of the participants answered all questions. The survey itself was structured into three
main parts, as seen in Table 1.
Table 1
Survey Structure
Part Type of Query
Response
Rate
a
b
General information (Table 19)

Estimating the value-of-time for one transfer (Table 20)
98 %
92 %
Estimating the value-of-time for overcrowded vehicles (Table 21)
87 %
It was interesting to observe that with the progress of the survey, the response rate
decreased. This is derivable by the motivation of the respondents to finish the survey
along the process of answering the monotonous questions. A complete list of the
translated queries and the corresponding answers are given in Appendix A.
Since it was unforeseeable who would actually participate in the survey, the choice
situations of the stated preference experiment are constructed in a way that everybody
is able to answer them without any additional knowledge. This is done with the best of
authors knowledge to avoid that people cancel the survey before completing all choice
situations but, even more important, that people understand and answer the question
correctly. To make it easy for the survey participants to grasp the context of the
decision situation, the survey is equipped with sketches, pictures and explanatory text
passages given in surveys screenshots in Figure 1. Most of the time, transferring is a
regular part of a connection (except direct connections) and therefore most people are
familiar with the personal correlated meaning of it. More difficult to capture is the
parameter congestion and what it means to travel in a crowded vehicle. Especially, the
abstract degree of volume to capacity ratio, explained in chapter 2.3 is hard to imagine.
Therefore, pictures are provided to illustrated different degrees of crowded respectively
overcrowded public transport systems
Since the number of questions in a survey is limited to a for the participant acceptable
number, the range of travel time is within one hour. It represents the regular travel time
for inner city OD-pairs. The travel time values of both connections are chosen such that
the statistical experimental design is most likely to captures all representative travel
times and correlations. To exclude the propagation of the same question order, the
questions in part b and c are given to each respondent randomly. The provided answer
to choose both connections is considered in the analysis as half an answer for each
connection. This is derived by the question type. To force the participants to give an
answer, most questions are carried out as a single select answer. But the possibility to
choose both connections as a third choice is also provided. The assumption: If a
participant would accept both connections but needs to decide which one he/she
chooses, the distribution is equally. That is the reason why the answer for both
connections can be spitted into half an answer for connections.
VuV 2013
17
Survey
Figure 1
VuV 2013
Screenshots Survey
18
Survey
2.2
General Information
Due to the fact that most of the respondents are from the authors family environment
or related to the environment of the University of Stuttgart, the responding group is
characterized as young educated people with an affinity to use public transport as a
standard transport mode, but with equally distributed income. Therefore, the amount of
respondents cannot be seen as a representative cross-section of society. The
distribution between female and male is almost equally represented. This is deducible
by analyzing Figure 2 and Figure 3. However, the respondent group is very familiar
with the properties of public transport, hence they are able to rate the queries about the
connection choices properly.
Figure 2
Gender (left), Age (middle), Income (right)
Figure 3
Education Degree (left), Percentage of Main Means of Transportations

(middle), Public Transport Modes for Regular Location Chances (right)
VuV 2013
19
Survey
2.3
Estimation Process
To estimate the value-of-time for the coefficient of the transferring parameter or

discomfort due to crowding, the method of Maximum-Likelihood is used. MaximumLikelihood describes a parametric estimation method. The coefficient is simply
estimated to the value which fits with the highest probability to the available data.
According to the surveys structure, the respondent have to weigh a time attractive
against a comfortable connection (non-transfer or less congestion). The impedance of
the connection is expressed by the impedance function for each estimation process
respectively. The impedance is evaluated by the multinomial Logit model (MNL) into a
probability. The likelihood of a connection is weighted by the sum of respondents to
calculate the value-of-time according to the following formula:
(
)]
Where:
Query
Impedance of connection for query
The amount of respondents chosen connection
Value-of-Time for One Transfer

The value-of-time for one transfer is calculated with the given impedance function to
7 min. This corresponds to the range of 5-10 minutes of other surveys and
assumptions in software products or standardized assessments (ITP, VWI, 2006),
(Wardman, 2001). The used impedance function is given below:
Value-of-Time for Overcrowded Vehicles

The meaning of overcrowded vehicles is more difficult to define since the willingness of
spending more time in public transport vehicles compared to the travel time in
congested vehicles depends on the travel time and the volume to capacity ratio.
Compared with the estimation process of transferring, different types of variables are
considered. In both cases, the travel time varies up to one hour among the
connections. Yet while the transfer is a binary decision, in contrary the congestion rate
varies between a half, three-fourths and almost completely full transit vehicle. The
travel time stays the same for each set of the three named volume to capacity ratio
degrees. The respondent needs to balance between the volume to capacity ratio and
the travel time. To estimate the coefficient, the same choice model from the estimation
process from the preview chapter is used. The parameter becomes more important the
VuV 2013
20
Survey
higher the congestion rate becomes. Therefore, the following impedance function is
used.
The coefficient
is calculated to about 13.5 min for an almost completely full
vehicle over all queries. This implementation assumes a linear relationship for the
volume to capacity ratio up to one hour travel time regardless of the in-vehicle time
(IVT). A more appropriate way to define congestion is to take into account the travel
time (PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012). By estimating the value-of-time for the
same travel time correlation (blue dots) with different degrees of overcrowding, Figure
4 shows a linear relation (trend line). This is comprehensible by the subjective
perception. The longer the travel time and the higher the crowding level, the higher the
discomfort of the connection. Ergo, the connection becomes less attractive and
travelers shift to connections with more travel time and less travelers on board. The
linear correlation is in line with the presented results of (Pownall, Prior, & Segal, 2008)
at the 21st European Transport Conference 2008. The linear crowding function to
capture the effect of congestion is considered in the transport planning software VISUM
and will be discussed in chapter 5.
Figure 4
VuV 2013
Value-of-Time Congestion
21
3 Traffic Modeling Fundamentals

This chapter first presents a classification of the different model types according to the
level of aggregation (Micro-, Meso, Macroscopic) and time relation (static vs. dynamic)
followed by a short description of the modeling principles for private and public transit
assignment models. In addition, the impact of information and capacity restrictions are
described. The chapter closes with the definition of the deterministic and stochastic
user equilibrium as a preparatory step to classify the type of equilibrium used in the
model comparison.
3.1
Traffic Model Principles
The typical approach in transport demand models to represent travelers decision

processes is captured with the classical four step algorithm. The algorithm covers the
decision process with the following four sub models (Boyce, 2001):
Trip or traffic generation models determine the
amount of inhabitants activities within a defined time
period. Thereby, focusing on activities, which lead to
a change of location.
Trip distribution or traffic destination choice models
identify the place where the activity takes place.
Modal split or transport mode models describe the
type of transport system which is used for changing
location.
Assignment or route choice models determine the
used path through the network with or without
capacity constraints.
Because route choice affects network elements or skim categories (e.g. travel time),
the traffic demand generally depends on the assignment result. Therefore, a feedback
loop is normally implemented between the sub models.
The transit assignment model emulates the correlation between supply and demand
and mainly calculates three output values (Friedrich, 2012):
Traffic flows:
Loads on single network elements:
Skim categories:
VuV 2013
Estimate the route/connection loads for

given OD-pairs.
Calculates the loads for single elements
of the network-like links, nodes, turning
movements, trips or stops.
Determine the skim values e.g. travel
time, travel costs and transits.
22
Static Transit Assignment Models

A transit assignment model is called static if the model does not consider a timeline.
Travelers with a fixed origin and destination are distributed onto networks routes
without considering the departure time. This means that demand is assumed to be
constant within the transit assignment period. Therefore, it is not possible for a static
model to provide information about the exact location of a traveler at a specify point in
time (Friedrich, 2012).
Dynamic Transit Assignment Models

A transit assignment model is called dynamic if the model does consider a timeline.
Travelers are distributed onto networks connections with a given departure time at the
origin. A requirement to fulfill the dynamic assumptions is to provide information of the
temporal distribution of a travelers movement along the route. The movement along
the route is described with a flow model to determine a travelers location at a specific
point in time (Friedrich, 2012).
Depending on the modeled decision, specific names are used for transport models.
Transport Demand Model:
Imitates the behavior of an activity decision

process, destination choice, modal split,
departure time choice and route choice for
passenger traffic.
Traffic Flow Model:
Simulates the velocity choice, lane choice and

choice of vehicles headway in road networks.
Most transit assignment models are classified into three major steps as listed below. To
fulfill stable convergence conditions, some of the steps need an iterative procedure.
Search process:
Estimates a set of alternative routes. The routes

are subjected to logical constraints to filter all
reasonable routes which might become
attractive to travelers within the assignment.
Choice process:
Models travelers behavior for the route choice

and assigns a suitable proportion of the demand
to the route set.
(Assignment equilibrium vs. decision probability)
Traffic flow models:
Simulates the movements of travelers along

their route.
To simulate the movements of travelers along their route, traffic flow models use
different levels of aggregation. They are classified into classes: microscopic,
mesoscopic and macroscopic, according to the level of detail and aggregation.
VuV 2013
23
Macroscopic Models
According to (Papageorgious, 1997) the macroscopic transit assignment model
describes the transition to the continuum theory. Probably the most famous
macroscopic transit model was developed by Lighthill-Whitham and has its origin in the
scientific research field of hydromechanics.
Microscopic Models
Another extreme, according to the level of detail, is the microscopic traffic model.
Vehicles are represented individually and the behavior of each vehicle depends on the
interaction with other vehicles. Additionally, vehicles subject to braking and
acceleration processes, as well as to the characteristics of the transport network (e.g.
light-signal system, right of way rules, lane assignment). Furthermore, the human factor
is considered by the models cognitive and reactive capability. Since some of the
components are subjected to stochastic processes the assignment needs to be
repeated until the results present an adequate mean situation of the network.
Mesoscopic Models
Mesoscopic models are a combination of macroscopic and microscopic modeling
approaches. That means that skim categories of the network are used but vehicles are
simulated individually, however, their second-by-second movement is not modeled.
Figure 5
Aggregation Level according to (PTV AG, 2012)
The characteristics of private (PrT) and public transport (PuT) differ significantly.
Therefore, it is necessary to specify individual assignment models separately in order
to simulate the model characteristics properly. Note that the separation of the models is
VuV 2013
24
required, but the interaction (e.g. bus lines are usually on regular streets and flow with
the surrounding traffic) should not be neglected. The classification and explanation in
chapter 3.2 and 3.3 are taken from (Friedrich, 2012)
3.2
Private Traffic Assignment Models
A private transport (PrT) model can be described in the major steps. Firstly, a route
search is performed which finds the choice-set of all alternative routes a traveler
considers on his way from his origin to his destination. Secondly, the route choice is
selected, in which the traveler chooses one of the alternative routes in the choice-set
according to the routes utility. And lastly, the traffic flow through the network, in which
vehicles are processed along their chosen routes and interact with each other.
Route Search in Private Transport

Route search methods, as they are provided in navigation systems or on the internet
(e. g. journey planners such as (Google Maps)) are based on shortest-path algorithms.
Only the shortest path according to the travel time is calculated. These mono-criterial
methods consider only one search criterion in the objective function. But the route
choice is influenced by many other factors, e.g. cost, road type, and road charge. To
extend the number of criteria, the variables are transferred with the help of value-oftime to an abstract value of impedance. Since travelers evaluate the variables
differently, it is advisable to work with bi-criterial methods to obtain all reasonable
routes (Wardman, 2001).
Route Choice in Private Transport

Since the route choice of each traveler reduces the capacity of the chosen path, hence
the travel time increases and the route becomes less attractive to remaining travelers.
For this reason decision models working with probabilities (e.g. Logit, Kirchhoff
(Ortzar & Willumsen, 2011)) are less suitable to simulate the distribution of private
traffic in the network. Instead a load-dependent route choice model is required to
describe the interaction between demand and route choice. These equilibrium models
are designed to the principles of (Wardrop, 1952). The deterministic user equilibrium
(DUE) can be extended to a stochastic user equilibrium (SUE) where the traveler
optimizes the perceived travel time rather than the real travel time.
Traffic Flow Model in Private Transport

One of the simplest traffic assignment models is the load-dependent model. The travel
time is calculated for each link individually depending on the utility and volume-delay
function developed by (Bureau of Puplic Roads, 1964).
VuV 2013
25
Capacity-Depending
Model
Link i
Macroscopic Flow
Model
Link i+1
Link i
Microscopic Flow
Model
Link i+1
i-1
i+1
Individual Vehicles
unified
Figure 6
Types of traffic flow models for private transport according to

(Wiedemann, 1974) and (Kemper, 2006)
In macroscopic models, the traffic flow is considered as continuous flow like a fluid
through a pipe. The velocity
is derived from the traffic density . The density is
defined as the number of vehicles within a path interval of the length
without
explicitly modeling lanes or vehicles. The correlation between velocity and density is
presented in the fundamental chart.
The most detailed representation of traffic flow is given in a microscopic traffic
assignment model. The complexity reaches from simple models like the cellular
automate (Nagel & Schreckenberg, 1992) to complex psycho-physical vehicle-following
models (Wiedemann, 1974).
3.3
Public Transit Assignment Models
One of the major differences between private and public transport is the time
dependency. Public transport participants are not able to decide freely when to depart
at their origin, because they depend on the schedule times of the transport system, e.g.
VuV 2013
26
bus or train. Therefore, the decision process is extended from a spatial route to a time
dependent connection.
Connection Search in Public Transport

The connection search in public transit assignments is mainly divided into the
categories frequency-based (FB-TAM) and schedule-based transit assignment (SBTAM) models:
The frequency-based connection search does not use the actual departure time of
the line nor the exact coordination between lines. It estimates the transfer waiting
time depending on the lines headway (HDWY) and the assumption about the
accessible information. The aspect about the information degree will be discussed in
chapter 3.4. The calculated paths do not represent connections. Instead, they are
routes, since no time axis is considered. Merely travel time and headways are the
foundation for the connection search (PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012). This
search method is mainly used for planning purposes where the coordination of the
timetable is negligible or the line density (e.g. inner city) is so high that travelers do
not coordinate their arrival time. The frequency-based transit assignment model
provides four different levels of information (PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012):
1. No information and exponentially distributed headway,
2. No information and constant headways,
3. Information about elapsed waiting time,
4. Information about the next departure time of the lines from the stop
A search method is called schedule-based if all arrival and departure times of a
public transport line are taken into account. The method assumes that travelers are
provided with exact timetable knowledge and they coordinate their arrival time to the
departure time of the first line (PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012). The
schedule-based transit assignment is presented in detail in chapter 5.
In simulation-based transit assignment models, each individual traveler is provided
with a static pre-defined path set which forms the foundation of the decision
process. Along the travelers path the decision process is dynamically applied to the
changing network environment. In terms of the dynamic path choice model, the
output of a travelers path choice is referred to as an adaptive path choice
depending on the travelers progress in the network. Since the decision progress is
a sequence of single decisions, the implemented dynamic path choice model is
dissimilar to static assignment models. Travelers in static assignment models
consider a path choice as a single decision for the whole path. The simulation-based
assignment model implemented in the framework of BusMezzo is presented in
chapter 4.
VuV 2013
27
Connection Choice in Public Transport

Similar to private transport, the travel time and costs play a major role in the decision
process. Additionally, the transfer frequency and the temporal utility influence the
connection choice. The temporal utility describes the difference between the actual and
the desired departure time (PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012). The demand is
distributed with a probabilistic choice model (e.g. Logit, Kirchhoff (Ortzar & Willumsen,
2011)). This method is also called random utility model since the evaluation process is
based on a utility of each alternative which is split into an objective deterministic and
subjective stochastic proportion. The traveler chooses the option among a set of
alternatives where he/she maximizes his/her utility.
Traffic Flow Model in Public Transport

Another substantial characteristic of public transport is that travelers do not drive
themselves. Instead, they board a public transport system as a passenger. Therefore, it
is necessary to distinguish between travelers and public transit vehicles.
Public transit vehicles are assigned to the network according to the lines timetable.
If all vehicles of a line coordinate their travel time strictly to a timetable, it is called a
microscopic flow model. In contrast, in a microscopic model each vehicle is
simulated individually and considers eventual occurring unreliability, e.g. travel time
fluctuations caused by the current traffic conditions. Since the location to a specific
time point is known, microscopic flow models are able to simulate the interaction
between private and public transport systems.
Public transport participants are introduced to the system as travelers who start their
trip at their origin stop, board the desired vehicle and move through the network on
board their chosen vehicle. The congestion process is captured in macroscopic
models with a feeling of discomfort due to crowding. This means that travelers are in
principle always able to board a vehicle, but the connection might become less
attractive according to a reduced utility because of crowding. Since each traveler is
modeled individually in microscopic models, the vehicle capacity is a strict limitation
of travelers boarding the vehicle. If the vehicle capacity is exceeded, travelers are
denied boarding the vehicle and they need to wait for the next approaching vehicle
or re-evaluate the alternative connections. Since travelers move in vehicles through
the network, this does not affect the travel time of the vehicle besides the extended
boarding and alighting process. The effect of congestion will be discussed in
chapter 3.5 in detail.
3.4
Level of Information
Depending on the specific model and the aggregation, different levels of timetable
information are provided to public transport travelers. Therefore, it is necessary to
distinguish between two types of information:
VuV 2013
28
Information level in static assignment models referring to the frequency-based

transit assignment model estimate the information degree of passengers and the
reliability of the public transport system, for example, the waiting time is estimated
as exponentially distributed or half the headway of a line. Additionally, the elapsed
waiting time at a stop or the next departure time of a line from a stop might be used
to calculate the choice-set. The information degree decides indirectly on the
attractiveness of paths and the number of selectable alternative paths. The
assumption of the line reliability is converted into the information provided to
travelers. The decision process is represented as a single decision according the
decision model. The schedule-based transit assignment model assumes full
information and considers the actual departure and arrival time of a line. Hence, the
search process considers paths and the temporal distribution of a line. The process
delivers reasonable alternative connections. Once the choice-set is calculated,
travelers chose their connection as a single decision according to the decision
model. If capacity constraints are considered, the decision process is carried out
iteratively depending on the discomfort factor but the choice-set remains the same.
Simulation-based transit assignment models do not estimate connections. Instead,
they estimate all reasonable paths as a foundation for the dynamically adaptive
decision process. Once the path set is calculated, each traveler faces a sequence of
decisions. The selected path is not an input for the choice model, instead it is the
result of the dynamic sequence of decisions. Since unreliability is simulated, the
timetable is used as coordination for public transport systems to adapt the actual
travel time to the predetermined timetable. This improves the network performance
by regulating the departure time also known as holding strategies. Therefore,
information has a different meaning. It represents the difference between expected
departure/arrival time according to the timetable and the actually departure/arrival
time according the existing situation. This can be referred to as real-time information
(RTI). The degree of real-time information given to travelers influences the amount
(no RTI vs. stop RTI) of information and the place (stop RTI vs. Network RTI) where
information is given to public transport travelers. This will be discussed in detail in
chapter 4.2.5.
3.5
Capacity Constraints
Traditional assignment models assume that travel time and costs are the main
attributes influencing travelers decisions. Empirical studies prove that passengers, in
reality, consider several qualitative aspects, which impair or improve the experience of
travelling (Tirachini, Hensher, & Rose, 2013). In the case of public transport, this
includes the number of travelers sharing one bus or train. The relevance of these
qualities becomes more important in developing and developed economies, since the
income of the population increases over time (Tirachini, Hensher, & Rose, 2013).
Consequently, public transport travelers are more likely to attach more value to the
service quality and comfort features (Tirachini, Hensher, & Rose, 2013). The disregard
VuV 2013
29
for capacity limitations is an unsatisfactorily simplification which does not reflect the
reality in highly loaded public transport systems (PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals,
2012). Capacity limitations can affect travelers decision process in different ways:
3.6
Absolute vehicle capacity:
A single vehicle is only able to carry as

many passengers as capacity is allows.
(e.g. BusMezzo)
Discomfort in the vehicle:
Travelers feel discomfort due to crowding

in a densely loaded vehicle. The effect can
increase if all seats are occupied. (e.g.
SB-TAM)
Discomfort outside the vehicle:
Transferring at a highly frequented transfer

stop is perceived uncomfortable. Aside
from the discomfort, delays may occur
because of queuing processes.
Stochastic or Deterministic User Equilibrium
The terms stochastic and deterministic will be widely used in chapter 6 to define the
comparable level of the two models, as well as for the determination of the input, output
and data characteristics. To obtain a fundamental comprehension of these
expressions, the following example will be used to clarify the underlying principles.
The example network shown in Figure 7 is simply structured. The demand of 1000
vehicles requests to travel between the origin and destination. The network provides
two alternatives; one with short travel time but less capacity and the other one with
longer travel time but more capacity. Depending on the equilibriums objective function
the demand will be distributed differently to route 1 and 2. Therefore, the deterministic
(DUE) and stochastic user equilibrium (SUE) as well as the system optimum (SO) will
be highlighted and described.
Equilibrium methods are widely spread in every-day planning to estimate the
distribution of traffic flows in transport networks. To optimize the objective function it is
necessary to distinguish between two deterministic approaches, also known as
Wardrops principles (Wardrop, 1952).
Deterministic User Equilibrium (DUE)

DUE provides full information to travelers and every traveler acts totally rational. The
utility is evaluated by the presented volume-delay function. To optimize the target
function, Wardrops first principle is used: Under equilibrium conditions traffic arranges
itself in congested networks such that all routes between any origin-destination pair
have equal and minimum costs while all unused routes have greater or equal costs.
(Wardrop, 1952). In other words, it is not worth changing routes because all other
VuV 2013
30
routes hold higher or equal impedance and everybody chooses the best route. In the
example networks chart, the two blue solid lines present the impedance (travel time)
for route 1 and 2 according to the actual volume. The equilibrium state is reached if the
(
)
(
) is fulfilled.
condition
The approach is based on the principle of the individual trying to maximize the personal
utility. For practical use however, the assumption that travelers are provided with full
information is questionable, because not each traveler can be continuously served with
information or acts without personal preferences (Boden & Treiber, 2009). These
weaknesses are compensated in the stochastic user equilibrium with variables to
estimate spontaneity and individuality and lack of information.
Stochastic User Equilibrium (SUE)

The stochastic user equilibrium assumes that travelers in principle choose the best
available route, but evaluate the alternative routes differently due to incomplete
information. In addition, the stochastic assignment for private transport, similar to public
transport, uses a distribution model (e.g. Logit, Kirchhoff (Ortzar & Willumsen, 2011))
to assign demand to alternative routes. In contrast to the deterministic user equilibrium,
the stochastic assignment distributes demand even to suboptimal routes due to the
used distribution model. This approach is closer to reality than the strict application of
Wardrops first principle (PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012).
In the chart, the red line represents the stochastic impedance for route 1. The input for
).
the stochastic impedance calculation is the volume from the distribution model (
The volume of the distribution model is calculated with the current travel time ( (
))
and a Logit model. The Logit model evaluates the difference of impedance between the
two alternatives. The stochastic equilibrium has reached stable conditions if
(
)
(
).
The willingness of travelers to accept routes which are more time consuming is
considered in regards to the corresponding parameter of the distribution model. DUE
and SUE correlate with the value of the parameter. The higher the value, the stricter
travelers evaluate the difference in impedance between the two routes and SUE comes
closer to a deterministic user equilibrium.
System Optimum (SO)

The system optimum pursues the approach of Wardrops second principle. The aim is
not to equalize all route impedances (DUE) but to minimize the total amount of
impedance in the network. This contributes to the fact that no traveler is able to benefit
without causing damage to other participants. The dashed green line is the weighed
sum of travel time and volume for route 1 and 2. The optimum network condition, in
terms of minimizing impedance (travel time), is fulfilled if the dashed line reaches the
minimum
VuV 2013
31
Demand
CR-Function according to BPR:
(
)
(
Dij = 1000
,
Route 1:
O
Route 2:
Figure 7
VuV 2013
Route 1
t0,1 = 8
Cap1 = 500
Route 2
t0,2 = 16
Cap2 = 800
Deterministic vs. Stochastic User Equilibrium
32
4 Simulation-Based Transit Assignment Model

The complexity of public transport systems increases with the interaction of various
modes, services, information and communication technologies, and transit operation
strategies. This increases the need of dynamic transit analysis evaluation tools which
represent timetables, operation strategies, real-time information, passenger adaptive
choices, and traffic dynamics. In order to simulate the interaction on a detailed scale,
the private transport simulation model Mezzo was developed by (Burghout W. , 2004),
and forms the framework for the private transport model BusMezzo. The developed
microscopic transit model BusMezzo by (Oded & Tomer, 2008) is an extension and
fully integrated in the framework of the mesoscopic traffic simulation model Mezzo. It
allows taking a dynamic perspective while comparing various scenarios of complex
interaction of system components (Centre for Traffic Research, 2013).
This chapter presents the principal model structure of Mezzo followed by the
framework of BusMezzo. The chapter concentrates on the explanation of BusMezzo
and responds to additional objects, simulation flow, implemented models, and the
dynamic path choice models. The latter describes in detail the choice-set generation
process followed by the path choice decision process, as well as the evaluation of
alternative paths and the actual path decision. The chapter closes with a description of
real-time information. The explanations and sketches in chapter 4 are taken from
(Burghout W. , 2004) and (Cats O. , 2011).
4.1
Mezzo
Most of the existing transit models are time-based assignment models. The core of the
simulation is the progress from one to the next time step while each equally scaled time
step calculates the changes and updates the network status. In contrast, Mezzo is an
event-based traffic simulation tool which progresses from one to the next event. The
model specifies which changes are classified as events and orders them into an event
list. Events are called as they appear in the event stack (Oded & Tomer, 2008).
Vehicles are simulated individually, but lanes are not explicitly presented. The link
structure is divided into a running and a queuing part. The running part is not affected
by the downstream capacity limit and describes the earliest link exit time. The travel
time on the link depends on the ratio between loads and link capacity. The queuing part
imitates the delay process if capacity is exceeded and characterizes the process of
vehicles queuing in a single lane waiting to exit the link. Queue servers determine the
capacity limitation on turning movements. Turning movements are modeled
stochastically to regulate delays. Vehicles are randomly generated following a negative
exponential distribution by time-dependent OD-pair flow matrices according to a prespecified vehicle mix. The route choice follows a multinomial Logit model and might be
influenced by the information degree provided to the vehicle.
VuV 2013
33
4.2
BusMezzo
By extending the model Mezzo to simulate the interaction between private and public
transport, the modularized object-orientated framework helps to implement the dynamic
transit operation and assignment model BusMezzo.
4.2.1
Object Framework
Additional classes like bus types, bus vehicles, bus lines, bus routes, bus trips and bus
stops are implemented and define the characteristics of the objects shown in Figure 8.
The subclass vehicle type inherits its characteristics from the object bus type and on
the other hand the object bus vehicle is described by the bus type, bus route, and bus
trip. Each bus trip is assigned to a bus line and a bus route. The bus route is specified
with an ID and an ordered sequence of links. Bus lines initialize the subclass of the
object actions, which defines general procedures in the simulation, determine the
scheduled trips, and the list of stops. The deposited timetable is used as a reference
point for each bus trip to adjust the actual travel time to the timetable with the help of
holding strategies to absorb delays. Stops are allocated to links with the characteristic
assumptions about the spatial position, dwell time, and waiting time of individual
travelers represented by an agent. Each time a bus arrives, the dwell time function
calculates the time the bus needs to spend in the station until all agents are alighted
and have boarded the vehicle, and summarizes the waiting time of agents which are
forced to wait because of denied boarding.
Figure 8
VuV 2013
Object-oriented framework for the public transport model BusMezzo

according to (Oded & Tomer, 2008).
34
4.2.2
Simulation Flow
At the beginning of the simulation all objects are initialized. By initializing the objects,
some of them register an event and save them in the event stack. Most of the events
result in a new sequence of results. Aside from the introduced objects, it is necessary
to implement several new event types to properly represent the transit simulation
model BusMezzo. A general overview of the simulation flow is given in Figure 9.
When the simulation starts, BusMezzo reads the bus line list and generates individual
trips with the corresponding objects bus lines, bus routes and bus types, and registers
the events in the event stack. If the vehicle has not been introduced to the system yet
(first trip on its trip chain), it generates a bus vehicle object and assigns it to the
required bus type. After that, the vehicle enters the first link on the line route. Once a
bus enters a link as sequence of its trip, it checks whether there is a stop and if the bus
services it. If no stop is located on the link, BusMezzo calculates the link travel time
depending on the current traffic conditions. In this case, there is no difference between
vehicles in Mezzo and busses in BusMezzo, because both objects are running on the
same network and are treated as agents with different attributes (e.g. seat capacity,
length). If a stop is on the link, BusMezzo calculates the travel time to the stop, and
books an event for entering the stop. When the bus enters the stop the dwell time is
calculated and the model checks if the bus is subjected to any control strategies (e.g.
coordination of the departure time to a predefined timetable).
The implementation of holding control strategies in the main loop requires additional
steps to execute the control logic and to determine the appropriate action. For
example, if a bus enters a stop, and holding strategies are activated, the control
strategy checks for how long the bus needs to be held in the station to minimize
accumulated delays according to the timetable and the actual temporal position of the
bus.
The outputs of the queries determine if the process books an event for the stop exit
time. Exiting a stop is similar to entering a link, the model checks if there are any
further stops downstream on the link, calculates the travel time for the link section
based on the traffic conditions and the loop starts over. By reaching the end of its route
BusMezzo checks if any additional trips are assigned to the vehicle. If yes, then the trip
process is activated and progressed through the system (trip chaining). If this is the last
trip of the line, the vehicle terminates.
On the output level, the simulation lists the collected data on stop level for each
individual traveler or bus. The main outputs of BusMezzo are line ID, trip ID, vehicle ID,
stop ID, traveler ID, early and late arrivals, dwell times, boarding and alighting
passengers, occupancy, denied boardings, selected paths, and travel times between
stops. On a larger scale of aggregation, e.g. at trip level, line or OD-stop level, it
presents a summarized list of the chosen paths or line loads.
VuV 2013
35
Figure 9
VuV 2013
Flowchart of the transit simulation process according to (Oded & Tomer,

2008)
36
Number of Replications
BusMezzo, according to its definition, is a stochastic simulation-based transit
assignment model. Therefore, it is necessary to run several simulations in order to find
a meaningful average and to evaluate each execution. Each run of a simulation is a
single shot of the current situation, also called within-day learning. That means that
there is no interdisciplinary exchange between the simulations. In fact, no learning
process takes place as it is performed in a day-to-day learning process. At the current
state, this feature is under development by (Gkioulou, 2013). This would also enable
access to simulate travelers behavior by shifting from overcrowded to less crowded
vehicles depending on travelers practical experience.
To receive statistically verified results, several simulations are needed. To quantify the
number of simulations, the following formula can be used (Dowling, Skabardonis, &
Vassili, 2004).
( )
( )
( )
Where:
( )
( )
( )
number of required simulations

mean value on the base of
initial simulations
standard deviation on the base of
initial simulations
indicates the student distribution table

level of significance
allowable error term to estimate ( )
As measurement for the service quality in the analysis of chapter 6, the average travel
time is used. To estimate the expected number of required simulations, ten were
calculated and used as a mean base with an allowable error of five percent and a
significance level of
. Each result set represents at least the average of ten
replications even if the required calculated number of simulations is below ten. Due to
the simple structure of the example network and the elimination of the stochastic
influence (see analysis of chapter 6), ten simulations are adequate. If the exact number
of simulations is not mentioned, the results are calculated as an average of ten
calculations.
4.2.3
Implemented Models
BusMezzo requires a detailed representation of its basic attributes to describe the main
elements such as travelers arrival and alighting process, dwell time, travel time, and
trip chaining.
VuV 2013
37
Travelers arrival and alighting process

Depending on the line frequency, passengers arrive randomly or coordinate their
departure time to the arrival at the stop to minimize the start waiting time. The line
characteristic strongly depends on the spatial situation where the line runs. Often, the
frequency in urban areas is higher than in rural areas. Therefore, one can say that
people in cities with a dense transit infrastructure network normally do not coordinate
the arrival time to the stop. This is in contrast to rural areas where the start waiting time
could grow largely by missing a connection. In between these characteristic areas or
even within a city, there is a large variety of these assumptions. Investigations in the
1980s e.g. by (Abkowitz & Tozzi, 1987) showed that the threshold between
coordination and random arrival to board a line is estimated to the dimension of ten
minutes headway.
BusMezzo is continuously developed to simulate the impact of Stockholms bus
network and to analyze the network structure. The frequency in the capital of Sweden
is relatively high in the inner city and decreases the further the lines go outside to
sparsely populated areas. Although there are discrepancies in the literature, most
research indicates a Poison distribution to describe the right skewed arrival process
(Fu & Yang, 2002), (Dessouky M. , Hall, Zhang, & Singh, 2003) and a Binomial
distribution for travelers alighting process (Morgen, 2002), (Liu & Wirasinghe, 2001).
This assumption is also adopted in BusMezzo.
Dwell Time
The implemented travel time calculation consists of two parts. One is the riding time
between stops, which depends on the vehicle density and the dwell time. The dwell
time describes the process at the stop from the start of opening the doors, travelers
boarding and alighting until the transit vehicle closes the door and leaves the stop to
enter the link again. The dwell time function implemented in BusMezzo is based on the
Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (Kittelson & Associates, KFH Group,
Parsons Brinkkerhoff Quade & Douglass, & Hunter-Zawarski, 2003). This approach
distinguishes between boarding and alighting separately for each door. The door with
the longest service time is crucial for the dwell time. If the bus stop is placed in-lane or
uses a bus bay, the delay time is captured by the used function because more time is
needed to re-join the traffic flow. The dwell time function is given by:
(
VuV 2013
38
Where:
is the dwell time for line at stop on trip
is the required service time for the front respectively rear door. It
depends on the total number of travelers boarding and alighting
and the crowding level on the bus
indicates if the bus top is in-lane or a bus bay
describes the physical space at the bus stop (e.g. 20 meters)
are parameters to specify the dwell time function
describes the error term for unpredictable events
To support the implemented holding strategies, the departure time is given by the
following formula for line at stop on trip :
(
Where:
Departure Time
Actual Arrival Time
Dwell Time
Departure Time as results of the holding strategy
Travel Time
The driving time between stops is the major part of a transit trip. Levinson (Levinson,
1983) estimated in his research that 9 to 26 percent of the total travel time is
contributed to dwell time and 12 to 26 percent of the time is spend in traffic delays. The
variables affecting the riding time in urban busses are subjected to deceleration and
acceleration processes due to the high density of stops every few hundred meters.
Depending on the independency of the public transport system (bus on links floating
with PrT vs. trains on independent rail tracks) the travel time reliability increases while
the service variability decreases. According to several researchers, the travel time of
busses and the arrival process tends to follow a right skewed distribution (Strathman,
et al., 1999), (Dessouky M. , Hall, Nowroozi, & Maurikas, 1999). BusMezzo keeps the
flexibility according to the estimated distribution and provides several functions like
normal, lognormal, Gumbel and gamma distribution to describe the travel time
variability with its characteristic runs.
Trip chaining
Besides the published timetables which show the service frequency to public transport
users, an additional schedule exists. It is known as a driving roster and is used by the
VuV 2013
39
operating company to manage the fleet and driver coordination. Each transit vehicle
and driver needs to fulfill a certain workload within a working period. From the time a
transit vehicle leaves the depot until it returns for servicing, it makes several trips.
Therefore, it is required to simulate trip chains. Mezzo usually generates and eliminates
vehicles between OD-pairs. But transit vehicles have different characteristics than
private vehicles. That is why busses should only be eliminated when they reach the
destination of their last trip. If busses would not be affected by unreliability and were
always on time, trip chains would be unnecessary. Since traffic is subjected to
stochastic processes, the feature of trip chains is needed to simulate the propagation of
delays and layover times adequately. Layover times have the goal to buffer delay to
avoid delay propagations along the route. Layover times may be spread along the line,
at the end of the line or a combination of the two (TCRP, 2003). Alternatively, these
recovery times are necessary for servicing (e.g. refuel) and breaks for drivers. Thus,
there is always some recovery time needed. The actual departure time of a trip from
the origin bus stop (dispatching time) is calculated as the maximum between the
schedule departure time and the arrival time of the bus from the previous trip at the
origin stop of the following trip plus a minimum recovery time plus a lognormal
distributed error term describing the stochastic departure delays. The actual
dispatching time is given by:
(
Where:
Actual Departure Time for trip
by bus
Schedule Departure Time for trip

describes the arrival time of bus
by bus
from the previous trip
minimum recovery time

presents the stochastic error term of the recovery time.
The following chapter describes the demand side of the model, specifies the generation
procedure of travelers and the dynamic path choice model.
4.2.4
Dynamic Path Choice Model
The transit path choice model approach in BusMezzo is a two stage choice process
shown in Figure 10. The first stage is determined by the base of the deterministic
network configuration (timetable and walking distances), the static path set for each
given OD-pair and uses it as input for the dynamic path choice model. Each generated
agent takes successive decisions along its path which is triggered by events. Each
alternative is evaluated by agents preferences and expectations. The expectations
depend on prior knowledge and the accessibility to real-time information. Agents
choice execution relies on capacity restriction.
VuV 2013
40
The separation allows determining a general set of paths as a pre-assignment step and
hence this step needs to be executed only once. It optimizes the performance in terms
of computing time, but it is no essential requirement for the principle work flow of the
model. Therefore, this step could be implemented either statically or dynamically.
Figure 10
4.2.4.1
Two-Stage Modeling Approach according to (Cats O. , 2011)
Choice-Set-Generation
The spatial choice-set generation is the basis for the dynamic path choice model. In
terms of route choice, the path choice is not trivial and aims to find all reasonable paths
for given OD-pairs. Because the path set is used as input for the path choice, the
model needs to also find paths for OD-pairs with no demand since they might become
attractive alternatives under some circumstances during the dynamic assignment. The
elimination process of paths is an optimization problem between dismissing irrelevant
paths and keeping the majority of the travelers used paths. By referring to the
elimination criterion of the schedule-based assignment model in chapter 5, both models
face the same problem in this step of the assignment but the number of paths in
VISUM will be the same or even more likely smaller compared to BusMezzo. The
filtering rules in BusMezzo are looser than in VISUM, because agents are facing the
decision of alternative connections dynamically. Note that the path set in VISUM is a
subset of BusMezzos path set. The principles in this assignment step are the same for
both models. Figure 11 shows a general overview of the choice-set generation
process. The dashed line in the figure marks the steps until the models assume the
same approaches. After this, different settings regarding the strictness of the filtering
process can be applied.
VuV 2013
41
Figure 11
Flowchart of the Choice-Set-Generation Model according to (Cats O. ,

2011)
Path Generator
First, the path generator calculates all direct paths, which do not involve a transfer stop.
Indirect paths are constructed by a recursive search method for given OD-pairs (Tan,
Tong, Wong, & Xu, 2007) illustrated in Figure 12. Therefore, a suitable data structure is
constructed to examine paths between the origin stop and all other stops. This is done
by increasing the number of transfers and considering all stops which are reachable
within the next connection link to the destination stop. At each stage, an additional stop
is used as an intermediate origin to restart the search loop. This method expands a
search tree to the depth of stops. The width of the tree depends on the reachable
stops within one stop level.
VuV 2013
42
Figure 12
Path Generator according to (Cats O. , 2011) and (Tan, Tong, Wong, &
Xu, 2007)
To limit the depth and width of the search tree and to filter out unreasonable paths, the
method is subjected to constraints (similar to the branch & bound method mentioned in
chapter 5). The maximum number of transfers is a pre-defined criterion to limit the
depth of the search tree. Additionally, paths are subjected to two logical constraints:
No loop:
Stops cannot be visited twice unless there is a

single walking link in between.
No abrupt transit leg:
Travelers cannot alight a trip at a stop just to

board a later trip of the same line.
Filtering
The applied recursive search method may generate a large variety of paths but
previous studies suggest that the path set of the choice-set generation model should
be reduced by non-compensatory rules (Recker & Golob, 1979), (Cantillo & Ortuzar,
2005) before passing the path set to the path choice phase. The aim of the filtering
rules is to emulate behavioral constraints and to assess each path independently from
alternative paths in the path set. The rules are given by:
VuV 2013
43
Maximum walking distance:
Only paths with less walking distance than a

defined threshold stay in the path set.
No opposing lines:
Filters paths which use the opposite direction of

the same line just to go upstream one stop to
take the opposing line back again.
Maximum number of extra

transfers
This threshold is considered by the path

generator but is necessary to re-assess this rule
because later generated paths may violate this
rule.
Maximum In-Vehicle Time
Ensures that unreasonable long paths are

excluded by checking the pre-defined ratio
threshold of the IVT of the alternative paths to
the minimum total IVT.
Dominancy rules
If a path is with no regard better to any another

path it is regarded as dominated and removed
from the choice-set. Specification in chapter 5.1.
Merging
Checking the provided paths individually, they fulfill all the filtering criteria but might
have the same spatial distribution to a certain percentage. Therefore, these paths can
be merged together in terms of a hyperpath (Spiess & Florian, 1988). It helps to avoid
the potential of overlapping paths which might cause bias in the choice model.
Alternatives which share the same sequence of lines but differ in their intermediate
stops can be merged as long as the route between the intermediate stop is the same.
The same rule is used to merge paths which share the same sequence of stops and
vary the lines. The merging process leads to the master set.
Dynamic Filtering
The dynamic filtering process uses the master set each time a traveler takes a decision
to examine the filtering rules to exclude paths which are unreasonable under timedepending conditions. Considered are the following criteria:
Availability:
An alternative is only reasonable if it is available

within a certain time horizon (Maximum
allowable expected waiting time).
Worthwhile to wait:
Excludes lines where the IVT is longer than the

IVT plus an extra charge (worst-case perceived
waiting time)
The remaining paths compose the collective consideration set. It is a temporal

available set of paths for given OD-pairs. BusMezzo is not capable of distinguishing
VuV 2013
44
between different user groups. The path set is the basis for the dynamic path decision
process which will be explained in the following.
4.2.4.2
Path Choice
The dynamic path decision process includes the connection, boarding, and alighting
decision.
Connection Decision
The first decision a traveler faces is the connection decision. He/she chooses at which
stop he/she might start his trip by evaluating all the path alternatives from the
selectable stops to the destination. Usually it is a non-transit (e.g. walking) connection
to the next stop. When travelers alight at a stop, a connections decision also takes
place. The connection decision is limited to the accessibility of stops.
Boarding Decision
Once a traveler decides to wait at a stop, each arriving trip triggers a binary boarding
decision. The traveler applies the decision rules to balance between staying at the stop
or boarding the approaching vehicle. The actual boarding process might be subject to
capacity constraints. The boarding rule becomes important in the analysis in chapter 6.
Alighting Decision
Once the traveler is on board, he/she faces an alighting decision each time the event
trigger is pulled. Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish between two extreme
modeling approaches. Essential for the process is the exact timing of the alighting
decision. Either the decision is based on the set of all potential alighting stops as soon
as the traveler boards the vehicle or the decision event is triggered each time the
vehicle approaches a stop. Before taking a decision, the alighting process needs to
identify all relevant stops of the path set. However, it is assumed that travelers take an
intermediate approach. Hence travelers immediately take a non-adaptive decision upon
boarding. Once on board, they may reconsider the decision during the ride due to the
changing conditions.
4.2.4.3
Alternative Path Evaluation
Independent of the actual decision (connection, boarding, alighting), the traveler needs
to evaluate the provided alternatives. The path evaluation spans an evaluation tree with
different levels of aggregated choice alternatives. Each choice can be presented as a
set of actions with different path alternatives. The presented sketch in Figure 13 is an
example of one possible decision tree. Actually, the decision tree varies between stop
decision (connection and alighting decision) and a binary decision between stay and
move (boarding and repetitive alighting decision).
VuV 2013
45
Figure 13
Decision tree according to (Cats O. , 2011)
The utility of alternative for decision maker
can be presented in the following form:
describes a vector of parameters coefficients and

corresponding parameter. To join the utility of
for action
is the expected value of the

the LogSum term is used.
The LogSum term is widely-used as a measurement for accessibility (Sweet, 1997) in

transit evaluation processes because it bundles the attractiveness of alternatives with
the important property that the aggregation does not decrease the aggregated utility.
This is consistent with the assumption that adding a path alternative does not minimize
the attractiveness of action . A travelers decision process is presented as MNL
choice model. The probability of decision maker chooses action is given by:
Where
is a scaling factor.
4.2.4.4
Path Decision Process
All the presented sub rules of the path choice model lead to the process of making a
path decision. In terms of the dynamic path choice model, the output of a travelers
path choice is an adaptive path choice depending on the travelers progress in the
network. Because the decision progress is a sequence of single decisions, the
implemented dynamic path choice model is in contrasting to static assignment models.
Travelers in static assignment models consider a path choice as a single decision for
the whole path. Travelers in BusMezzo do not choose between paths, instead they
choose between alternative actions which correspond to certain path stages. The
adaptive decision process is shown in Figure 14.
VuV 2013
46
The path decision choice starts with the random generation process of travelers
according to the given OD demand matrix with the expected arrival rates. Each traveler
updates his/her perceptions with the accessible information or prior knowledge. Each
traveler first takes the connection decision and thus decides where to initialize his/her
trip or to stay at the current location in case their origin is a transit stop. While travelers
wait for the arriving vehicle their expectations might be updated with provided
information at the stop (RTI or elapsed waiting time) which deviates from their
expectations and leads to a reconsideration of the connection search. Each time a
vehicle approaches, travelers are confronted with a binary boarding decision, whether
the traveler boards or stays at the current stop to wait for another vehicle. Once on
board the traveler updates his/her perceptions on downstream alternatives by the
provided information. While on board, the traveler may receive new information which
deviates from his/her expectations and leads to reconsidering the alighting decision.
Each time the vehicle approaches a stop, the model checks which of the travelers
needs to alight at the current stop. A new connection decision is performed, once the
traveler alights. While exiting the vehicle, the traveler decides between the alternatives
of waiting for another line, walking to another transit stop or walking to his/her
destination. If the traveler has reached his/her destination, the trip is terminated.
Otherwise, the current stop is considered as a new origin stop and the path choice
decision process is recalled until the trip chain is completed.
VuV 2013
47
Figure 14
VuV 2013
Path Choice Decision Process according to (Cats O. , 2011)
48
4.2.5
The large enrichment for public transport system users (e.g. time savings) as well as
for transport operators (e.g. automated vehicle location (AVL) Data for fleet
management) by collecting and providing real-time information has been studied
extensively (Lappin & Bottom, 2001). Therefore, the public transport systems are wellequipped with communication and information technologies. The collected data was
first used by transit operators to structure the fleet management and react faster and
more precisely in case of service disruption or fleet coordination. In a later step,
information is provided to transit users to increase the service level and to minimize the
variability of unreliability. On both sides of a public transport system, operators and
passengers profit by real-time information. There is no limitation on the scope of realtime information, e.g. to travel times or expected arrival times. The information degree
might extend to provide crowding conditions, expected and unexpected service
disruptions or for planning purposes with the aim to rise the service quality. To
dynamically imitate the impacts of real-time information using BusMezzo to predict
precise information for further downstream conditions, the presented framework in
Figure 15 is implemented into the model. Inputs are represented in parallelograms,
ovals show the data processing, rectangles express models, and outputs are described
by rounded rectangles. The core of the real-time information process is within the
dashed frame. The three modules within the frame represent the transit operation on
the supply side and traffic dynamics (in blue), the generation process for real-time
information (in purple) and on the demand side traveler decision (in orange).
Figure 15
VuV 2013
Framework for real-time information modeling in BusMezzo according to

(Cats O. , 2011)
49
BusMezzo uses methods of automated data collection (ADC) such as automated

vehicle location and automatic passenger counts to generate prediction on future
transit condition to distribute the information to travelers. On the base of this generated
information, the control strategy is designed to improve future transit performance. The
provided information might influence travelers decision process, because the taken
decision is a reaction on the transit condition. Because all processes in BusMezzo are
modeled simultaneously, the propagation of real-time information affects travelers and
operators in their decisions. The current implementation generates real-time
information from historical data (e.g. timetables) and automated data collection (e.g.
AVL) of the current vehicle.
The real-time information propagated to travelers, affects their decision base and
hence it affects the travel decision. Each decision depends on travelers expectations
respectively on future travel attributes (e.g. travel and waiting time, service quality). It is
assumed, if no real-time information is provided, travelers base their decision on prior
expectations like timetable knowledge. This can be seen as foundation for the decision
process. All additional information updates the expectations of the transit user with
respect to the transit network along his/her decision path. Therefore, BusMezzo
provides the possibility to simulate different levels of information at different decision
stages to fulfill the requirements of the individual accessible information. The increasing
number of personal mobile devices with access to information (e.g. smartphones)
continuously feed travelers with real-time information during the entire trip. This reflects
the highest standard of information access. A lower level of information provision is the
platform or station level. Real-time information is accessible for all transit users either
for one stop or aggregated for several stops, e.g. in form of departure or arrival time
screens. The individual level of information overwrites the general network information
level. In total, BusMezzo provides the following information levels in descending order
with respect to the information content:
No RTI
Platform/Stop RTI
Station/Cluster RTI
Network RTI
VuV 2013
no access to information exists and decisions are

based on prior knowledge
is available at stop level for departures from the
specific stop
is available at station level for several stops including
walking distances
is available to all individuals regarding all transit
services in the network through mobile devices.
50
5 Schedule-Based Transit Assignment Model

This chapter summarizes the workflow and the principles behind the schedulebased/timetable-based transit assignment model implemented in VISUM. For further
information please check (PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012). Explanations and
sketches shown in chapter 5 are taken from the named source.
The schedule-based transit assignment model is a macroscopic public transport
assignment model and represents traffic on an aggregated level in terms of traffic
flows. All services of a line are taken into consideration with their exact departure and
arrival times based on the given timetable. The method is used to assign public
transport traffic loads to connections and to calculate skims for the network
performance on a macroscopic level. To run the assignment, detailed information about
the line network and timetables need to be available. Because the coordination of the
timetable is considered, precise results can be achieved. The connection search for
each OD-pair assumes full timetable knowledge and coordinates the connection to the
first departure time of the public transport line. Note that this assumption implies no
waiting time at the origin stop. For the connection search, the method Branch & Bound
and shortest path search are provided. For the analysis in chapter 6, only the first
method will be considered. The setting of the search impedance allows characterizing
the quality of the connections (e.g. dominance and bounding rule). The pre-selection
algorithm again analyzes the quality of the connection choice and sorts out those which
have significantly lower utility by general criteria. The demand will be distributed to the
choice-set on the basis of a distribution model. The SB-TAM is not capable of modeling
passengers individually or to simulate unreliability.
The chapter starts with the description of the connection search, followed by the preselection and the calculation of the impedance. Furthermore, the connection choice
and the distribution of traveler are explained. The chapter closes by analyzing the
impact of the additional provided volume-delay function. The values of the parameters
and coefficients, used in the analysis in chapter 6 are given in appendix B.
5.1
Connection Search
For each origin zone a search tree of suitable connections to all stops in the network is
generated. This ensures that not only the best, but all adequately good connections are
found for the origin zone. The resulting path tree allows a highly differentiated
distribution of the traffic demand. To evaluate the quality of a connection, a search
impedance is used. The search impedance is calculated to:
VuV 2013
51
The parameters are journey time (JT), number of transfers (NrTransfer), transport
system specific impedance (TSys_Imp) and vehicle journey specific impedance. For
the analysis in chapter 6 only the journey time and number of transfers are considered.
Dominance
A pair-by-pair comparison is important to identify redundant connections. If a
connection is with no regard better than any another connection within the same time
series, the connection is dominated by others and removed from the choice-set. A
connection c is dominated by connection c if
c is within the same time series of c
NrTransfer (c) NrTransfer (C)
SearchImp(c) SearchImp(c)
There must be a real inequality in at least one of the previous criteria
Bounding
Independent of the temporal distribution of a connection the following rules are
implemented to exclude connections which differ too much in one or several criteria
from the optimum:
SearchImp(c) > minimum SearchImp(C) factor + constant
Journey time(C) > minimum journey time(C) factor + constant
NrTransfer(C) > minimum NrTransfer(C) + constant.
The connection search ensures that all logical connections are found according to the
settings.
5.2
Pre-Selection
The pre-selection step values and compares all found connections. Only reasonable
connections are provided to passengers connection choice. To identify unreasonable
connections, the following exclusion criteria are consecutively executed:
SearchImp(c) > minimum SearchImp(c) factor + constant
(or no limitations; just branch & bound)
Journey time(C) > minimum Journey time(C) factor + constant
(unless the connection is optimal with respect to the number of transfers)
NrTransfer(C) > minimum NrTransfer(C) + constant
(unless the connection is optimal with respect to the journey time)
VuV 2013
52
5.3
Impedance and perceived journey time of a connection
The impedance is a linear combination of several parameters and parameter-specific

coefficients which describe the influence of the parameter on the connection choice.
For the analysis in chapter 6, the linear combination of perceived journey time (PJT)
and temporal utility is used. For detailed information about all possible provided
parameters see (PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012).
Perceived journey time
Temporal Utility of a Connection and Desired Departure Time

To simulate the passengers wish to departure from the origin at a certain time, the total
demand is distributed to user defined time series. Each time series consists of one or
several time slices. Each time slice represents the assigned amount of passengers
who wish to depart within the given time span. The time difference between the desired
departure time and the actual departure time of the connection is represented in the
parameters T(early) and T(late). T(early) is above zero if the connection departs
earlier than the passengers desired departure time, T(late) if the connection departs
later than the passengers desired departure time, respectively. The greater the
difference, the greater is the impedance added to a connection. If a connection departs
within the time slice of the desired departure time, no additional impedance is added.
For analyzing the network in chapter 6, one time series is implemented with 60 time
slices with the length of one minute each.
5.4
Connection Choice
The connection choice uses the impedance of a connection within a time slice in
respect to the impedance of all other connections to calculate the distribution of traffic
demand on the given choice-set. The percentage of the demand, which is distributed
to the connections, is calculated with the help of a choice model, according to the
following formula:
(
)
(
VISUM provides several choice models (e.g. Logit, Kirchhoff, BoxCox, Lohse (PTV
VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012)). In the case of the model analyzes in chapter 6, the
Logit model is selected.
VuV 2013
53
Logit Model
In the Logit model, the percentage of the demand distribution to a connection is
calculated as follows:
The Logit model evaluates the differences of the connection impedance. There is no
difference for the model if the travel time of two routes is 10 and 15 or 100 and 105.
The distribution on both alternatives would be the same. The sensitivity of passengers
towards increased impedance is described by the parameter and is set to
. This
ensures a relatively strict reaction to small changes in impedance and assumes the
same condition than BusMezzo.
5.5
Crowding Functions
The default settings in the schedule-based transit assignment model do not consider
the fact of overcrowded connections. That means that demand is distributed
independently from the impedance of the connection and the volume to capacity ratio.
However, if the ratio of volume to capacity is considered in the impedance function,
connections which seem unattractive considering their perceived journey time might
become attractive connections. Thereby, the set of possible connections might change
and grow. The capacity restriction in the schedule-based assignment aims to simulate
discomforts for passengers due to crowded or overcrowded vehicles. The approach
approximates the fact that passengers exceeding the capacity need to use different
connections. However, there is no strict limitation of capacity if the vehicle capacity is
saturated. The general sequence of the procedure is shown in Figure 16.
Independent from the volumes distributed to each connection, the default connection
process and the pre-selection are carried out in the first step of the procedure.
Followed by an optional connection search which calculates the connection search a
second time. In order to do this a pre-assignment distributes loads to the pre-selection
to ensure that connections, which could be dominated by other connections from the
first connection search, are in the choice-set. Optionally, the first and the second
selections are merged. This forms the choice-set for the transit assignment process.
The connection impedance is calculated independent from the parameter volume to
capacity ratio. Step six initializes the actual iteration process. To describe the
impedance because of crowding, VISUM uses the expression Vol/Cap ratiodependent impedance. It is added to the connection impedance from the previous
step. The Vol/Cap ratio-dependent impedance changes through the iteration process
depending on the volume to capacity ratio. A smoothing process (e.g. MSA (PTV
VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012)) prevents oscillations. It increases the probability
VuV 2013
54
that the iteration process converges. If the termination conditions are verified, the
iteration procedure terminates.
Start
Default connection search and pre-selection indenpendent from volumes
Optionally, the connection search is calculated a second time to take the
calculated volumes into account. This ensures that connections which could be
dominated by other connections are in the choice-set.
Optionally, merging both selection searches
Connection impedance is calculated independently from the volume to
capacity ratio
Calcualtion of the impedance based on the volume/capacity ratio and total
impedance of connection.
Smoothing process to prevent oscillations
Measurements to describe the distance from the balanced state.
no
If the termination
conditions are verified the
procedure
will be cancelled.
yes
End
Figure 16
Sequence of the general crowding procedure based on (PTV VISUM

12.5 Fundamentals, 2012)
VISUM provides three alternative crowding functions to calculate the ratio-dependent

impedance which are characterized in the following. All crowding functions have in
common that they use the vol/cap ratio
for each vehicle journey item as main input
and the static user-specific parameters to specify the run of the procedure.
The linear and the SSB function are presented in the following as a pre-explainable
step for the analysis in chapter 6. The German Railway (DB) functions is not used
during the investigations and not further discussed in this thesis.
VuV 2013
55
Linear
The linear crowding function defines the impedance for a vehicle journey item as
follows:
(
is an input value of the iterative process.
and
are user-specific parameters and
specify the run of the function. The volume-based impedance W of a connection is

calculated to:
Swiss Rail (SBB)

The SBB function defines the impedance as follows:
{
Parameter
and
are user-specific inputs. The parameter
calculated from the derivation at the position and . The conditions are:
(
and
are
The derived parameters are:

(
)
(
)
)
VuV 2013
(
(
)
)
56
The volume-based impedance W of a connection is calculated to:
In order to simulate the increasing effect of capacity limitation on connection choice,

the standard values of the SBB function have been adjusted. and describe in the
function the scope of application depending on the volume to capacity ratio
.
Therefore, the steep increase of the impedance starts from
and ends at
. The parameters
and are derived respectively. This means that if
the ratio of volume to capacity exceeds 85% each additional passenger boarding the
connection boosts the Vol/Cap ratio-dependent impedance.
Figure 17 presents the assignment runs with different crowding functions provided in
Visum. The SBB function is presented twice (with default and adjusted parameters).
Figure 17
VuV 2013
Assignment Runs with different Crowding Functions
57
Model Comparison
6 Model Comparison
To obtain a better practical knowledge about the effectiveness of the simulation-based
and schedule-based transit assignment model approach, a designed example network
will be presented and used for the comparison. The network needs to be as simple as
possible but still covering all relevant phenomena. On the one hand, the example
needs to consist of the characteristics of each single model. On the other hand, a
certain degree of complexity is necessary to reflect the specific assumptions of each
model.
The presented network is loosely based on the research network of (Spiess & Florian,
1988). The author is not aware of a more appropriate network to fulfill the needs for the
comparison. Therefore, the network will be used to elaborate the details of the different
model approaches. The example network will be elaborately described and presented
in Chapter 6.5.
To use the presented theoretical background information in Chapters 4 and 5, a
moderate software framework is needed. A representative for the macroscopic transit
assignment model PTV VISUM 12.5 is used to cover the schedule-based transit
assignment model. The microscopic part is implemented in the simulation-based
software BusMezzo. Both models are carried out in the object orientated programming
language C++. In the following, the software names are representatively used for the
assignment model. To make this point clear so that it does not cause any
misunderstandings, the allocation is considered bellow. Additionally, the term traveler is
used as general expression for somebody who travels in the network. If the
characteristic of a traveler is related to VISUM, the expression passenger, and
respectively to BusMezzo the term agent is used.
(
(
)
)
To elaborate the differences of the models, a systematic variation of scenarios is

developed, formally described, and implemented. Before comparing the models it is
simply necessary to define the starting conditions, what is actually comparable and
what level of similarities is achievable. The simplification process is carefully done to
the best of knowledge of reduction and consideration of the input data. It is not the aim
to simplify the models as much as possible to reproduce the same results. Rather it is
important that the same starting condition is used to evaluate the output data and point
out the difference.
The following chapter describes the network index, the classification, aspects which are
able to model, the comparable level, the information degree provided in each model
and necessary simplifications which are needed to make them comparable. Therefore,
the chapter starts with an overview of the comparable model parameters followed by
VuV 2013
58
Model Comparison
the definition of the comparable level and necessary simplifications. Furthermore, it

describes the travel time correlation between VISUM and BusMezzo which contributes
to the description of the example network. Subsequently, an overview over all sets and
scenarios is provided. Set A is referred to as a base case and describes the difference
in the path choice model, transfer rates, and load segments. Set B supports the
statements of set A and focuses on a larger scale of aggregation. It describes the
model behavior by increasing the demand. Not only might the increase of demand
cause capacity restriction, but the reduction of vehicle capacity and frequency leading
to a collapse in performance as well. The chapter ends with the comparison of different
information levels in BusMezzo.
6.1
Classification
Another way of presenting the introduced models from the previous chapters is to take
a look at the scale of the supply and demand side. Table 2 illustrated the classification.
Table 2
Scale Classification of Supply and Demand
Supply/Demand
Micro
Macro
Micro
BusMezzo
Macro
SB-TAM
FB-TAM
Before the simulation-based model BusMezzo and the schedule-based transit

assignment model are compared later in this chapter, it is advisable to take a look at
the fundamentally modeled parameters given in Table 3. It helps to classify the models
to contribute to the understanding of why the presented results might occur differently.
VuV 2013
59
Model Comparison
Table 3
Modeled Factors
Comparison of the essentially modeled parameters
SB-TAM
BusMezzo
Planning Interval
Type of Equilibrium (Results)
Choice model
Deterministic
Stochastic
Joint car and PT assignment
Traffic dynamics representation
Accordion effects - Delays
Service Disruptions
Supply
Holding Strategy to compromise delays
reliability
capacity restriction (Queuing Process)
Dwell time
Vehicle types
Vehicle scheduling/Fleet assignment
Generation Process
Demand
representation OD-level with connectors (walking links)
Random taste variation
Demand
Within-day learning (adaptive path choice)
modeling
Day-to-day learning
Vehicles
Level of
representations Travelers
Cost
In-vehicle time
Access time
Egress time
Walk Time
Access stop wait time
Path evaluation Transfer wait time
components Number of transfers
Number of operator changes
Departure time choice (hidden waiting
time)
Mode specific constant
Stop and line preferences
Discomfort due to Crowding
Frequency knowledge
Timetable knowledge
Degree of
Information
Group dependent information degree
L
Sto
Det
x
S-M
Sto
Sto
(x)
x
x
Meso
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sto
x
x
x
*
I
I
Macro
x
Det
x
x
I
F
x
x
x
x
x
(x)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Sto Stochastic
Det Deterministic
I Individually
F - as Flows
* - in development (BM)
Meso Mesoscopic
Macro Macroscopic
S,M,L - Short, Middle, Long
VuV 2013
60
Model Comparison
6.2
Comparable Level and Information Degree
On a larger scale the comparable level needs to be defined. The objective is to

compare the output results by choosing the same or as similar starting conditions as
possible. Because the core of each model is already in some parts totally different, it is
not possible to have the same starting conditions for all input parameters. The
simplifications which are made are described in Chapter 6.3. Beside the restriction the
comparable level needs to be clarified. By taking a look at the supply/demand side and
comparing it with the stochastic and deterministic equilibrium, it is clearly shown in
Table 4 that the supply side is different. It is obvious by its structure that BusMezzo
uses stochastic processes on the supply as well as on the demand side by default.
Interestingly enough, VISUM, or better the SB-TAM, is deterministic on the supply side
and stochastic on the demand side. The supply side provides reliable trips and the
information degree refers to timetable knowledge. After calculating the impedance for
each alternative connection, passengers are distributed with the help of a discretechoice model. Hence the results for the SB-TAM are stochastic. Only for comparison is
it mentioned that, for example, the well-known deterministic user equilibrium (DUE) in
private transportation assignment (e.g. VISUM) is deterministic on the supply as well as
on the demand side.
Table 4
Supply and Demand Comparison
Supply/Demand
Stochastic
Deterministic
Stochastic
BusMezzo
SB-TAM
Deterministic
(DUE)
To make the models comparable, it is necessary to have the same starting conditions.
Because it is not possible to manipulate VISUM to behave stochastically on the supply
side, the only possible adjustment is to force BusMezzo to behave deterministically.
This is done by eliminating all the stochastic processes e.g. the vehicle travel time,
boarding and alighting processes, and the dwell time at stops. At the bottom line, the
reliability is set to 100%.
Another major difference is the information degree provided to travelers. BusMezzo
features four different levels of information which are elaborately described in
Chapter 4 and shows some similarities to the information level of the headway-based
assignment model condensed in Chapter 3. In contrast, the SB-TAM considers only full
information. The expression full information might be not the proper description in this
context. Full information includes also knowledge about monetary costs. In this
comparison the effect of costs is excluded, thus the expression full information, is set
equal to the usage of timetable knowledge. Timetable knowledge aligns more
adequately to the information levels provided in BusMezzo. By observing the
comparable level, the information degree in BusMezzo needs to be set to network realtime information, as is shown in Table 5.
VuV 2013
61
Model Comparison
Table 5
Deterministic
BusMezzo
VISUM
Information Degree Comparison
No RTI
Platform/
Stop RTI
Station/
Cluster RTI
Network RTI
Timetable Knowledge
By forcing BusMezzo to be deterministic on the supply side and using network realtime information for all agents equals in reliable timetable knowledge as is defined in
VISUM for passengers. These definitions form the starting conditions for the
comparison level between the models. Table 6 gives an aggregated overview of the
comparable level of information and supply characteristics. The classification will
change among the investigations.
Table 6
Comparable Level and Information Degree Rsum
Supply
Modell
BusMezzo
Deterministic
VISUM
6.3
Information
Network RTI
Timetable Knowledge
Simplifications to make the models comparable
Since several of the implemented theories in BusMezzo and VISUM are different, some
simplifications are needed to get the same or at least the closest possible starting
conditions to make the models comparable and examinable. One of the differences is
the parameter variety in the utility function. VISUM provides a large range to specify the
utility function as is presented in Chapter 4. BusMezzo provides the parameter IVT,
WalkT, NrTransfer and WaitT(BM) in the utility function. In fact, the number of
parameters varies and needs to be reduced to the same quantity. Hence the amount
will be reduced to the main unit used in BusMezzo. All other provided parameters in
VISUM are set to zero and have no influence on the assignment results. The definition
of the selected parameters is the same in both models except for the waiting time. The
parameter waiting time is too fundamentally important for the assignment results
impact that it cannot be left out. For this reason a means needs to be found to
compromise the parameter differences.
Waiting Time Definition

The waiting time (WaitT(BM)) in BusMezzo combines the waiting time at the origin stop
until the agent is able to board the chosen trip and the time an agent needs to transfer
between vehicles at a transfer stop. It has been proved by empirical investigations that
travelers perceive waiting as waiting regardless if they have to wait at the beginning of
their journey or in between (Cats O. , 2011). Therefore, BusMezzo waives to
distinguish the waiting time and combines them in the parameter WaitT(BM). Figure 18
sketches the waiting time definition for BusMezzo and VISUM. The grey pigmented
VuV 2013
62
Model Comparison
area represents the time before an agent has been generated relating to BusMezzo
and, in terms of VISUM, the time slice before passengers experience their desired
departure time.
Figure 18
Waiting Time Definition
VISUM defines demand as a total number of passengers who are in the network from
the beginning of the assignment time interval. The time component is considered by
the definition of time series and the weight for each time slice. The more the weight of
one time series, the greater is the percentage of passengers amount from the total
demand. Within one time slice, also called desired departure time, there is no
difference in impedance. This means in consequence that passengers are able to
choose trips which departure earlier as their desired departure time. Of course this
comes along with an increase of impedance for connections departing out of the time
slice and they might become less attractive. This is not the case in BusMezzo, because
each individual agent is generated and before an agent has not been generated into
the system, he/she cannot board any trip. From the moment a specific agent is
introduced to the system and decides to wait at the originating stop to board the
arriving vehicle, the waiting time starts to count and might influence his/her decision
during the decision process through his/her journey. Consequently, to merge the
parameters, the coefficient early temporal utility of a connection in VISUM needs to be
set to a sufficiently high value for the impedance to be high enough so that passengers
do not take a trip which departures before the desired departure time. This involves the
fact that agents are not able to board before being generated. The coefficient late
temporal utility of a connection is apparently equal to the waiting time at the origin stop
in BusMezzo within the time series tolerance. The time series tolerance specifies the
different amount of agents at the introduction point compared with the consistent
number of passengers. As already mentioned, BusMezzo introduces agents randomly
and uniformly distributed within the generation time. Because the generation follows a
VuV 2013
63
Model Comparison
distribution, it cannot be guaranteed that during a specific time slice, e.g. one minute,
the exact same number is introduced compared to adjacent time slices of the
generation time process. Overall, the number of agents introduced to the system
balances to the deterministic demand level in VISUM, thus some differences in waiting
time might occur. The smaller the time series, the smaller the impact of the time slice
tolerance. Therefore, the length of the time series has an essential influence on the
calculation of the impedance. Hence it needs to be small enough to fit the assumptions
of the agent generation process in BusMezzo. By comparing the network results in a
pre-working step it has been shown that setting the time series to a length of one
minute is adequate. Smaller time series have marginal effects on the assignment
results, but the calculation time increases disproportionately.
This simplification does not represent the exact same phenomenon, but it is a
moderate way to implement it. With the parameter definition and the coefficient setting,
the starting conditions are as similar as they can possibly get and the results are
comparable. The summarized utility function with its characteristic parameters and
coefficients for BusMezzo and VISUM might look something like those presented
below. The parameters and their coefficients do not change during the analyses. For
the sake of completeness, the utility function used in VISUM also lists the additional
capacity constraints term. BusMezzo does not provide such a term, because the
capacity constraint effects are covered by the boarding or better the denied boarding
process.
(
( )
( )
(
)
(
( )
Where:
[min]
999
( )
Of course, there is motivation to discuss the values of the coefficients. They are loosely
based on the common accepted values named in the literature e.g. (Wardman, 2001),
(ITP, VWI, 2006) and the presented survey in chapter 2. For analyzing the two model
approaches it is sufficient.
Because BusMezzo uses the multinomial Logit model to calculate the probability of an
alternative, the default choice model in VISUM is adjusted to it. A full overview of the
used setting in VISUM is listed in appendix B.
VuV 2013
64
Model Comparison
Passengers in VISUM have full timetable knowledge. Therefore, the access to the
origin stop is always coordinated to the first departing trip, which means that the origin
wait time is constantly zero. VISUM provides the option to approximate the adapted
origin wait time but it is a constant supplement value calculated with the input of the
service frequency. The origin waiting time has the same value for all connections of an
OD-Pair (PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012). According to the network settings,
the service frequency varies respectively among OD-Pairs. Therefore, it is more
suitable to use the temporal utility of a connection which is defined above to approach
similar starting conditions. The alternative to consider the origin wait time is not as
similar to BusMezzos behavior, but it would include the origin wait time in the travel
time. This fact needs to be retained referring to the travel time correlation described in
the following chapter and the results analysis.
6.4
Travel Time Correlation
In the following lines the correlation between the travel time for a given OD-Pair and
line or the sequence of chosen lines for both models will be discussed. Referring to the
general form of the utility function and the simplifications which are necessary to
archive similar starting conditions, VISUM does not provide origin waiting time. In
contrast, BusMezzo considers origin waiting time along with the transfer waiting time in
the combined parameter waiting time. The set up for the impedance in VISUM
considers the fact of desired and actual departure time by increasing the path
impedance but this is not implied in the total travel time. The total travel time is defined
as the length of journey time. Based on this there is a relation between the total travel
time in VISUM and BusMezzo which is defined in the following expression.
( )
By drawing a randomly and uniformly distributed number of generated agents,

independent from the amount of generated agents, the average waiting time will be half
the headway. Subtracting this value from the average total travel time (ATTT) will result
in the total travel time calculated by VISUM. This travel time correlation is only valid for
non-capacity restricted cases. Using capacity limitations and considering the definitions
from Chapters 4 and 5, each model represents different types of capacity restrictions
and hence the travel time is exposed to different influences.
6.5
Example Network
The investigation network is shown in a general form in Figure 19. It consists of five
stops where travelers may start, transfer and/or determine their journey. The network
also provides five different lines with different headways, travel times, and vehicle
capacities. One two-minute walking link exists between stops 2 and 5. Transferring
platforms at stop two or three implies a walking time (WalkT) of additionally two
minutes. The complete timetables of line 1,2,3,4 and 5 are respectively listed in
VuV 2013
65
Model Comparison
appendix C. The vehicle capacity of Line 1, 2, 3 and 5 is 50 travelers, while Line 4 has
a vehicle capacity of only 25 travelers. In this network, there is no difference between
seats and total capacity.
In this network, only demand of public transit is considered. The interaction with private
transit vehicles is ignored. This is a major simplification and reduction of the model
scope especially for BusMezzo. But on the other hand, this allows getting a closer
comprehension of the operation method respectively.
Figure 19
General Network Representation
The simulation time is generously determined from 7.00 to 10.00. Within the range of
simulation time, the generation time is fitted to the length of one hour starting from 7.30
to 8.30. The demand is generated during this period and equally distributed either
through the whole period (BM) or in equal one minute time slices (V). The large pre and
post run ensures that all travelers arrive at their destination within the simulation time
and are included into the result set. The earliest trip departs at 7.24 (pink line) and the
latest at 9.02 (green line). The number of trips overlap the traveler generation time.
Table 7 shows an overview of the line characteristics.
Table 7
Network characteristics
Nr
Name
Line
segment
Frequency
-1
[h ]
Hdwy
10
[min]
IVT
[min]
Stop(i,j)
(1,2)
Line
Pink
Green
Line
Yellow
(1,4)
Generation
Time
Capacity
[pax]
50
500
50
500
50
200
(2,3)
Line
Vehicle
Capacity
[pax]
6
10
15
(2,3)
25
4
(3,4)
Line
Blue
(3,4)
20
10
25
500
Line
Brown
(5,4)
15
15
50
750
VuV 2013
66
Model Comparison
Network Indicator
In addition to the vehicle capacity, the generation time capacity (GTC) is calculated by
multiplying the length of the generation time with the frequency and the vehicle
capacity of the line. Connecting this value with the amount of generated travelers gives
a rough indicator of how busy the network is.

In a later step, the network indicator value is used during the investigation to define the
capacity levels. Exceeding the ratio value over one (or 100%), more demand is created
than the generation time capacity is theoretically able to carry and agents, for example,
would need to wait at a stop until they are able to board a trip which departs after the
generation period. This will be discussed and explained in detail in the following
chapters.
The introduced network has been developed in the framework of VISUM. Therefore, it
features some VISUM specific characteristics and it is not possible to transfer the
network topology directly to the technical implementation in BusMezzo. The
implementation differences are described in the following lines. It also gives information
as to how and why the models use such a way of realization. By specifying the model
characteristics, the explanation and definitions refer to (Cats O. , 2011) and (PTV
VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012). For detailed explanations reference is made to
(Cats O. , 2012), (Burghout, 2011) and (PTV VISUM 12.5 User Manual, 2012).
To implement demand into the system VISUM uses zones. Each zone characterizes
the origin and/or the destination of movements. That means each journey starts at a
zone and terminates in another zone. Zones form the connection between the demand
and the transport supply (network). Each zone is connected to the network with
connectors and corresponds to an access or egress route. Therefore, a connector
forms either the origin or the destination connector. By connecting zones with the
network, passengers are able to enter and to exit the network and demand can be
assigned to it. The network itself basically exists for the purpose of representing nodes,
links and stops with their characteristic attributes. Nodes are defined as locations
where roads intersect, links starting or terminating, and turnings are specified. A link is
thereby defined between two nodes. A stop is used to let passengers board, transfer or
alight a public transit vehicle and can either be located on a node or on a link. Hence
zones are connected to nodes with a stop point in the represented network. All five
lines running in the network are assigned to a specific line route with a determined
sequence of stop points and a line route profile. The line route profile describes the
departure, transfer, and arrival times at each stop and defines the travel time between
stops. Because the line route profile output, like travel time, is independent from the
topologys attributes of the network, it is possible to assign different travel times
VuV 2013
67
Model Comparison
between the same stops to different line routes even though they run on the same link.
Assigning different travel times for individual line routes to the same link simplifies the
network, because no separate nodes and links are needed for each individual line
route. VISUM provides the possibility of calculating the travel time on the link attributes,
but it is not mandatory. Each individual vehicle journey is implemented into the model
as a pre-assignment step. The element of a vehicle journey between stops is called
vehicle journey item. Within one vehicle journey item, the calculated attributes stay
constant. For example, passengers are only able to board, transfer or exit a vehicle at
a stop point and not during the run.
Figure 20 VISUM Network Representation: General (left), Implementation (right)

Figure 20 shows the generalized network presentation of VISUM. On the left side there
is the general perspective of the network and on the right side the actual view of the
implemented network in VISUM. By looking at the network, it is not obvious that
specific line routes have different characteristics, like travel time, on the same link,
because they overlap.
Figure 21
VuV 2013
BusMezzo Network Representation
68
Model Comparison
BusMezzo follows a different idea of implementation. The systematic implementation of

the example network is shown in Figure 21. Transit demand is not introduced in the
system at zones like it is in VISUM. Instead the model generates agents at stop level.
Therefore, no connectors are needed. Of course, this is only true for public transit
demand. Considering the network structures in cites most of the bus stops are located
on links. Hardly any bus stops are located on nodes. BusMezzo picks up the idea and
allows stops only on links (red colored links are bus stop links). To define the position
of the stop the upstream and downstream nodes are used as reference points.
Because a stop can only be located on a link, additional nodes and links are necessary
to introduce stops as it is shown in the initial network due to the environment
framework. For each stop, two nodes and one link need to be provided (grey colored
area with two blue nodes and a red colored link are representative for one stop). The
length of the link is just a little bit longer than the bus length and therefore the impact is
marginal on the output values. Furthermore, it is possible to specify whether bus stops
are located on the street or on a lay-by. This allows simulating the interaction of private
and public transit demand at a stop. This feature does not play any role in the
investigations, because the interaction of private and public transit is excluded. This
exclusion is simply done by implementing zero private transit demand. To distinguish
the node type, each node is specified as origin, junction or destination node. Lines start
at an origin node and terminate at another destination node by passing none or several
junction nodes and stops. For each junction node, the number of turnings needs to be
defined. The sequence of stops is a pre-assignment step and needs to be carried out
for each line. Trips are not defined as a pre-assignment step to the network, like it is in
VISUM, instead trips are generated within the simulation. The definition of trips follows
the same basic idea, except for the travel time of a trip segment. BusMezzo provides
different types of trip generation. The simplest used format defines trips by the
sequence of stops, the schedule time of the first trip, the headway, and the number of
trips. The travel time of a trip sequence and dwell time at a stop is not needed,
because the travel time is an output value of the simulation just as well as the dwell
time. As already mentioned in the beginning of the comparison these two values are
set to zero variably and perfectly reflect the static input data of VISUM. The possibility
provided by BusMezzo to simulate travel-time disruptions is excluded from the
comparison by defining non disruptions. Another difference is the demand
representation. Demand is not given as an exact total number of travelers rather
demand is presented as the probability that a certain value of agents is being
generated within a defined time slice (pax/hour) for a given OD-Pair. The degree of
information provided to the agents is also a fundamental difference between the
models and needs to be defined. The travel time for each trip sequence (VISUM
Vehicle journey item) is not a pre-assignment step, in fact, it is an output value of the
link length and the speed density function. Therefore, the speed density function is an
attribute of a link. This is the reason why for each line with different travel times on a
trip sequence needs to run on its own sequence of links. The vehicle waiting time at a
VuV 2013
69
Model Comparison
stop is defined by the dwell time function. To reduce the impact of the additional
introduced links to connect origin nodes with stops (56,109), stops with destination
nodes (1211) and links to introduce stops (12,67,1415,912,34), the speed density
function is set to a sufficiently high value. On all other links, the combination of velocity
and length reflects the default travel times listed in Table 7.
By taking a comparable look at the generalized network representation between Figure
20 and Figure 21, it is obvious that the structure seems simpler in VISUM. Two other
facts which boost the network topology are the stop definition and the different ways of
describing the travel time. VISUM provides a separate interface to enter the time
profiles in a pre-assignment step. BusMezzo abdicates to define the time profiles to
simulate reliability and calculates the values from the link attributes and the assigned
speed density function.
6.6
Set and Scenario Overview
To obtain a better knowledge about the working principals, different sets of

investigations are developed to point out the behavior and the characteristics of the
model BusMezzo and VISUM.
Figure 22
Set Overview
Figure 22 shows the classification of the comparable level and different sets of
comparison. Each set might consist of several scenarios. The whole table of sets and
their scenarios is listed in Table 8. The lowest level represents the comparable level
how it is defined in chapter 6.2 with a deterministic behavior on the supply side and
network real-time information provided to agents in BusMezzo. By using this limitation
on BusMezzos side the models are comparable. The influence of capacity restrictions
has a major focus in the thesis. Therefore, different types of capacity constraints are
VuV 2013
70
Model Comparison
defined. Set A compares the influence of unlimited to limited capacity in detail.

Unlimited Capacity is represented by an adequate high value of vehicle capacity. The
limitation refers to the input data from Table 7 and represents the base case scenario.
The results are presented in chapter 6.7. The following set B compares the same
condition to set A, except demand is increased by 40% and gives an overview of the
results in chapter 6.8. This chapter also includes an aggregated subset of set B where
demand is stepwise increased by the parameter . Another possible way to cause
capacity constraints is to reduce the vehicle capacity or to lower the frequency of the
vehicle runs. This is carried out in set D in chapter 6.9. Set C is the last set of
comparable scenarios. It analyzes the impact of the information degree provided to
agents with the limited base case. As can be seen in Figure 22, one of BusMezzos
major strength, the simulation of reliability, is not compared due to the simplicity of the
example network.
Table 8 is a listing of all the different sets, subsets and scenarios used during the
comparison. The scenario name combines all the necessary information to keep the
overview. The combination starts with the name of the set followed by an underline.
Depending on the scenario, the sequence after the underlines varies. Either it
describes the type of capacity restriction, the model being compared, or the demand
level which is used or the information degree provided to agents. The information in
braces describes either the model and the used crowding function, the type of
comparison or the level of variation.
VuV 2013
71
Model Comparison
Table 8
Set
Scenario Overview
Type
Model
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Capacity
Restriction
UVC
UVC
UVC
LVC
LVC
LVC
LVC
LVC
UVC/LVC
Crowding
Function
M
M
MC
M
M
M
MC
MC
SC
BM
V
BM/V
BM
V
V
BM/V
BM/V
BM
A
A
UVC/LVC
UVC/LVC
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
UVC
UVC
UVC
LVC
LVC
LVC
LVC
LVC
SC
V
SC
V
Overview_Set_A(Lin)
Overview_Set_A(SBB)
M
BM
M
V
MC
BM/V
M
BM
M
V
M
V
MC
BM/V
MC
BM/V
B
B
B
UVC/LVC
UVC/LVC
UVC/LVC
B
B
Lin
SBB
Lin
SBB
Lin
SBB
Scenario Name
A_U(BM)
A_U(V)
A_U(MC)
A_C(BM)
A_C(V(Lin))
A_C(V(SBB))
A_C(MC(Lin))
A_C(MC(SBB))
A_BM(SC)
A_V(Lin(SC))
A_V(SBB(SC))
B_U(BM)
B_U(V)
B_U(MC)
B_C(BM)
B_C(V(Lin))
B_C(V(SBB))
B_C(MC(Lin))
B_C(MC(SBB))
B_BM(SC)
B_V(Lin(SC))
B_V(SBB(SC))
LVC
LVC
SC
BM
SC
V
Lin
SC
V
SBB
Overview_Set_B(Lin)
Overview_Set_B(SBB)
M
BM
M
V
Lin
LVC
BM
C_NetRTI(BM)
LVC
LVC
BM
Lin
B_D()_BM
B_D()_V
C_TTK(V)
A_C(V(Lin))
C_NoRTI(BM)
Overview_Set_C
D
D
VVC
VVC
M
M
BM
V
D
D
VFC
VFC
M
M
BM
V
VuV 2013
Lin
D_VVC()_BM
D_VVC()_V
Lin
D_VFC()_BM
D_VFC()_V
72
Model Comparison
Where:
UVC
LVC
VVC
VFC
NoRTI
NetRTI
TTK
M
MC
SC
Unlimited Vehicle Capacity

Limited Vehicle Capacity
Variation Vehicle Capacity
Variation Frequency Capacity
No Real-Time Information
Network Real-Time Information
Timetable Knowledge
Model
Model Comparison
Scenario Comparison
By comparing the models, basically the loads on line segments, the average total travel
time, and the number of transfers is considered to deviate and to explain the difference
in the models approaches.
Table 9 shows the schematic proceeding of the load line segment comparison. The Set
in the upper left cell indicates the set name. The inner four scenarios declare the output
results calculated by BusMezzo or VISUM either with or without capacity restraints.
Next to the actual load are also the generation time capacity and the ratio listed. The
linear crowding function is used as a default function. Additionally, the SBB function is
used and presented on a separate page. The column model comparison compares the
results among the models. The row scenario comparison draws a comparison among
the results of one model under different scenarios (unlimited vs. limited capacity).
Table 9
Scenarios of Set A
Set
BusMezzo
VISUM
Model Comparison
Unlimited Capacity
S_U(BM)
S_U(V)
S_U(MC)
Limited Capacity
S_C(BM)
S_C(V(Lin))
S_C(MC(Lin))
S_BM(SC)
S_V(Lin(SC))
Header
Scenario Comparison
The evaluation of the results is carried out with the measure of the total value, the
relative value, and the GEH. The GEH is defined as follow and attaches the total and
relative value (UK Department of Transport, 1996).
Where:
Load model M
Load model C
VuV 2013
73
Model Comparison
6.7
SET A: Unlimited and Limited Vehicle Capacity with Low Demand
Set A represents the general framework mentioned in chapter 6.5 and is called the
base case. The aim is to get a first comprehension of the model behavior. Table 10
shows the demand injected to the system as travelers per hour. Because the
generation time is exactly one hour, the demand representation may be used as total
number of travelers introduced to the system.
Table 10
OD travel demand [pax/h]
OD-Pairs
Stop 1
Stop 2
Stop 3
Stop 4
Stop 5
Stop 1
300
60
300
Stop 2
360
Stop 3
240
Stop 4
Stop 5
360
To exclude the impact of capacity restriction, unlimited vehicle capacity is first

considered. Therefore, discomfort from crowding and the actual capacity restriction
have no impact. Agents are always able to board and the ratio of loads to capacity is
indefinitely close to zero and no additional impedance is added. In the second step, the
vehicle capacity is limited to 50 and 25 respectively. The results of the line loads
segments are listed in Figure 26 and Figure 27.
Average Total Travel Time

Indeed all simplifications and compromises are done correctly, is the average total
travel time. It should be the same value referring to the model output. Table 11
summarizes the average total travel time for BusMezzo and VISUM for the unlimited
and limited case. Obviously, the travel times are at first glance not the same. But taking
into consideration the presented travel time correlation in chapter 6.4, travel can be
equalized.
( )
The average total travel time correlation can only be used if capacity is not considered.
In most of the application purposes, capacity plays a role in the assignment. The
question may also rise as to why this rule is not executed for all comparable cases. The
comparison of travel time is in this context very difficult, and therefore the usage of
travel time correlation is an exception and cannot be used in general. When it comes to
capacity restriction, travel times are not comparable due to the definition and what it
VuV 2013
74
Model Comparison
represents respectively. Thats why the travel time calculated with BusMezzo is written
down in its original form.
Table 11
Set A ATTT
[min]
Unlimited Capacity
BusMezzo
16,8
Limited Capacity
16,8
VISUM
13,3
13,5 (Lin)
14,6 (SBB)
Two facts are conspicuous in Table 11. One is the invariable travel time in BusMezzo,
independent from the usage of capacity. To show how busy the network is, the average
occupancy of the network is calculated to a network index of 66% by putting the
demand into ratio with the generation time capacity. This shows that the volume to
capacity ratio of the network is simply too low to cause significant congestion effects.
Considering the fact that the results are aggregated with a five percentage error term
estimating travel time, the values have an oscillation of five percent, too. Therefore, the
limitation of the capacity has a slight impact, but it is within the tolerated deviation. The
other peculiarity is the major difference between the linear and the SBB function in
VISUM. Using the linear function, the calculated travel time represents the minor
impact of the capacity restriction. Due to the steep rise of impedance, the SBB function
influences the travel time much more than the linear function with a smoother
impedance increase. Minor changes in the route choice causes major penalties.
Therefore, less attractive connections referring to long in-vehicle times become more
attractive, because the ratio of loads to capacity is lower. In total, the travel time
increases.
Transfer Rate
The transfer rate shown in Table 12 is also used for pointing out the work flow of the
models. Obviously, the impact on transfers in BusMezzo is the same as on travel time.
The network indicator is simply too low to cause major congestion effects, thus agents
are not denied of boarding and the amount of transfers stays even. In contrast, the
impact in VISUM is much higher. Considering the unlimited vehicle capacity, the
transfer rate between BusMezzo and VISUM is ten time less often.
Table 12
Set A Transfer Rate
[%]
Unlimited Capacity
BusMezzo
5,8
Limited Capacity
5,8
VuV 2013
VISUM
0,58
0,43 (Lin)
0,18 (SBB)
75
Model Comparison
To understand why the transfer rates are so different, it is necessary to take a close
look at the choice-set and the choice-set generation model with its filtering rules. For
further detailed information refer to (Cats O. , 2011) and (PTV VISUM 12.5
Fundamentals, 2012).
Path Choice Model

BusMezzo is a simulation-based transit assignment model. Therefore, the path choice
model is carried out in a two stage modeling process. The first pre-assignment stage of
the generation process is based on the deterministic network characteristic (lines,
stops) and the associated timetables (departure time and expected travel times). After
generating, filtering, and merging the paths, it results in the Master-Set. This process
needs to be executed only once for a given network. The Master-Set is used as input
for the probabilistic, dynamic path-choice model as part of the assignment. Each
individually generated agent is influenced by his/her successive path choice decision
by triggering events (e.g. boarding an arriving vehicle). Alternative actions (e.g. alight
or stay) are evaluated by agents expectations and preferences which are defined by
the accessibility of real-time information and prior-knowledge (Cats O. , 2011).
In contrast, using VISUM, the complete connection search is carried out as a preassignment step by using the branch & bound option to calculate not only the best but
all suitable connections during the analysis period. This allows a differentiated demand
distribution. To evaluate the connection quality, a search impedance is used. A
pairwise comparison is carried out to identify and to eliminate useless connections. A
connection is removed if it is in no respect better than another connection within the
same temporal situation. Once the choice-set is generated, demand is distributed with
the respective attractiveness to the connections with a distribution model (e.g. MNL in
our example network) (PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012). Apparently, no
additional choice-set generation model is necessary to define the choice-set due to the
timetable knowledge and the deterministic assumptions on the supply side.
This fundamental difference causes several impacts on the transit assignment results
such as the difference in the number of transfers. Because VISUM dominates all
connection with respect to timetable knowledge, the choice-set will be tighter compared
to the Master-Set generated in BusMezzo. For example, BusMezzo filters only totally
unrealistic paths and keeps therefore more paths in the Master-Set to provide them
with the probabilistic dynamic path-choice model. An alternative has a certain
attractiveness due to its utility and a certain probability to be chosen. VISUM would
have excluded most of the alternatives because one transfer of five minutes is a major
factor with respect to the other parameters in the utility function. Because the decision
process is based on a likelihood process, a certain percentage of agents will take less
attractive connections as is demonstrated in Figure 23.
VuV 2013
76
Model Comparison
An agent is forced to take a decision process whenever the event trigger is pulled. In
the graph below one agent has to decide between six alternatives. Each alternative has
a certain probability. The probability is an output value depending on the utility and the
choice model. The decision process itself is carried out by drawing a random number
between zero and one. The greater the probability of an alternative, the higher the
probability the alternative is chosen. A random number, for example, is calculated to
0.65 the agent takes alternative 4. VISUM only provides a minimum of connections with
a transfer compared to BusMezzo. Hence agents use more unattractive connections
with respect to the number of transfers. This explains the value difference by the power
of ten.
Figure 23
Selection Probabilities between Alternatives
Line Segment Loads

Another perspective of comparing the models is to evaluate the line loads on line
segments. The loads of set A are presented in Figure 26 and Figure 27. Taking a first
look at the loads, it is obvious that on some line segments the results are very close to
each other and on other line segments the loads vary enormously, especially for line
segments between stops 2, 3, 4 and 5, 4. The loads between stops 1, 4 and 1, 2 are so
similar because the network structure simply does not allow travelers to switch
between alternatives. For instant, for the OD-pair 1 to 4, the green line has the lowest
impedance compared to the alternatives traveling via stop 2. It would cost more effort
and implies at least one transfer. Of course, there is a certain probability of using less
attractive alternatives. Another reason why the results on the stated line segments are
so similar is the directed structure of the network. There is no such possibility for other
OD-Pairs besides 1 to 4 to reach their destination going via stop 1. The major
VuV 2013
77
Model Comparison
difference is obvious between lines pink, yellow, blue and brown between stops 2, 3, 4
and 5, 4. The reason why this occurs will be discussed in the following lines.
The difference between the lines pink and yellow between stops 2 and 3 is partly
explained by considering the fact of the choice-set. In addition only passengers from
stop 1 to 3 take the pink line directly to their destination and all other passengers exit at
stop 2. Except for the limited capacity case, for passengers from other OD-Pairs use
the pink line. On the other hand, BusMezzos agents use the pink line more often in the
section. This is caused by the generation process of agents and triggering the event
trigger.
Passengers coordinate their arrival time to the departure time of the trip. Using the pink
line automatically implies a transfer a stop three. This makes the connection
unattractive because the additional impedance of five minutes per transfer is relatively
high compared to the short travel times in the network. Most of the passengers use the
fast yellow line to reach their destination.
In contrast, agents are randomly generated and do not coordinate their arrival time with
the departure time of a certain trip. In terms of distribution choice model the cleverest
decision might be to wait at stop 2 until the fast yellow line approaches for the
destination stop 4. Because the frequency of the yellow line is low compared to the
pink line agents are forced to take the decision process every single time a vehicle
approaches. This phenomenon can be explained more easily by taking a look at the
next line segment between stop 3 and 4 because the option of walking is excluded.
Triggering Event
Lets pretend only demand from stop 3 to 4 is considered. 240 travelers have to decide
between a line with less in-vehicle time and low frequency or a line with more in-vehicle
time and high frequency. According to the definition in chapter 4 the event trigger is
pulled by taking a connection, boarding or alighting decision. A randomly generated
agent is introduced to the system and faces the decision process at stop 3. Therefore,
a connection decision needs to take place. Because the generation process is not
coordinated to any departure time, the agent has only one option and decides to wait at
stop 3. Whenever the next trip of a line arrives the agent faces a boarding decision
(boarding vs. waiting). While taking the decision, he/she is aware of the utility of all
alternatives because network real-time information is provided. The agent choses the
actual alternative by picking a randomly generated number and sets it in correlation to
the probability of the alternative. This is described in Figure 23. This means the greater
the utility of an alternative, the higher the probability that the alternative is chosen.
Every time the event trigger is pulled, the decision process starts again.
VuV 2013
78
Model Comparison
Table 13
Load difference Line Segment 3-4

BusMezzo
VISUM
Yellow Line
31
128
Blue Line
210
112
240
=240
Taking a look at stop 3 where two lines with contrary line characteristic departure, the
event trigger has a major impact on the results. The presented loads in Table 13 are
the results of a separate assignment. It should be noted that the sum of the demand in
BusMezzo is not exactly 240 travelers. This comes from the stochastic generation
process and the calculated average of a sufficient high number of simulations runs.
Only demand from stop 3 to 4 is considered. The difference is significantly high. It
seems VISUM distributes the loads more balanced over all provided connections while
BusMezzos agents prefer the blue line with a long travel time and high frequency. To
understand how this works, let us take a look at the timetable in Figure 24. Decision
Figure 24
Timetable of the Yellow and Blue Line: BusMezzo (left), VISUM (right)
The yellow lines headway is 15 minutes with a travel time of 4 minutes. In contrast, the
blue line departures every 3 minutes but the in-vehicle time is 10 minutes. VISUM
dominates some of the blue trips (marked light blue in the figure, right), because the invehicle time is greater, the departure is earlier and the arrival is later. These trips are
removed from the choice-set. Hence they do not carry any loads. In BusMezzo these
trips are part of the choice-set. Each agent chooses with a certain probability whether
he/she wants to board the alternative or not. In some cases an agent might be
generated very close to the departure time hence the waiting time is almost zero and
one of the dominated trips becomes attractive and the agent boards the vehicle. But
this does not explain why the loads among the lines is significantly different. Therefore,
the process of the event trigger needs to be clarified.
VuV 2013
79
Model Comparison
Since the event trigger is launched in a sequence of three minutes and in addition
every 15 minutes according to the lines approaches. Agents face a decision process
quiet often. In the given situation agents decide between boarding or waiting until the
next vehicle departures. This leads to a chain of decisions and the multiplication of the
decision probabilities.
Figure 25 is taken into consideration to illustrate the process by a theoretical example.
The decision probability between two alternatives is estimated at 50% (e.g. flipping a
coin). On the first decision level, 50% decide whether to board or to stay at the stop.
Whenever the next vehicle approaches, the likelihood of the decision process stays the
same but only 50% of the demand faces the second level. Hence, the number of
deciders reduces by the multiplication of the probability to 25%. If you think about the
example of flipping a coin, the probability to get head or tail x times in a row is
.
Figure 25
Event Trigger Process
In our case line blue induces a high number of decisions and agents tend to board the
slow high-frequented blue line, because of the fact that this line causes a lot of decision
processes and agents board the blue line although it could be smarter to wait until the
fast yellow line approaches.
In summary, a high-frequented line causes more decisions thus having a major impact
on the travelers distribution. It is also questionable how realistic this might be, because
the implementation allows agents to deny the first arriving vehicle of a line but allows
boarding the second arriving vehicle of the same line. Hardly any user of public
transport systems would do this. Either they will board the first arriving vehicle of a line
or they wait until the next arriving vehicle of another line departures. This is the reason
why the model comparison between BusMezzo and VISUM for the unlimited capacity
scenario delivers dissimilar results especially for the relations stop 2, 4 and 5, 4.
VuV 2013
80
Model Comparison
Limited Capacity
The explanation, given in the previous sections, gives a detailed exploration of the
basic behavioral characteristic specifying BusMezzo and VISUM. These characteristics
are truly independent from the limitation of the capacity. Therefore, the limitation of
capacity will be discussed on the following pages. As already mentioned in chapter 3.5,
BusMezzo and VISUM describe different phenomena by considering congestion
effects. BusMezzo takes into account the actual limitation of capacity. This means if a
vehicle has reached the capacity limit nobody is able to board and they have to wait at
the stop. If no alternative is coming, the agent does not reach his destination. In
contrast, VISUM describes the discomfort due to crowding. Because it is just a felling
passengers are in principal always able to board independently from the degree of the
volume to capacity ratio. Of course, densely occupied vehicles become less attractive
but if no alternative is provided passengers will still board. The used crowding functions
are characterized in chapter 5.5.
Comparing the scenarios unlimited and limited capacity with the model BusMezzo, it is
obvious that the impact of the capacity restriction is marginal. This can be derived by
the network business. The network volume to capacity ratio is only 70 % of the
theoretical amount the network is able to carry during the generation time process. The
quantity of generated agents is simply too low that no denied boarding process takes
place. The scenario comparison would be more interesting if demand was increased.
The in-vehicle time in VISUM has a major impact on the distribution to the connection
choice. Therefore, passengers are attracted by those lines. If discomfort is considered
passengers try to avoid crowded vehicles and take into account the in-vehicle time of
the trip segment. The impact of the linear function is relatively low to crowdedness.
Hence a lot more passengers still take e.g. the fast yellow line than the generating time
capacity is able to carry. What is questionable, however, is the fact the assignment
allows passengers to board highly overcrowded vehicles. There is no actual limitation
to the total number of passengers fitting into one vehicle. The number of passengers
boarding a vehicle in reality might fluctuate highly depending on the situation. But in
fact, at a certain degree simply no more passengers are able to board. BusMezzo
considers this fact with a clear limitation in the boarding process. The closest notion of
a travelers behavior in reality might first consider the fact of discomfort, and if a certain
level of volume to capacity ratio has been reached, a strict refusal of boarding
processes takes place.
It is not astonishing that the impact on the comparison between the unlimited and
limited scenario using VISUM (independent from the crowding function) is much higher
than it is running the assignment with BusMezzo. Obviously the limitation on the
vehicle capacity has no direct influence on the capability of boarding. Enough capacity
is provided to the travelers that they can take their desired trip. But if crowding is
considered using VISUM, the core of the assignment changes from a stochastic
VuV 2013
81
Model Comparison
distribution to an iterative learning process. After all realistic connections have been
determined (depending on the operators selected settings and filtering rules) and used
as provided choice-set for each connection, the individual impedance is calculated.
Depending on the desired departure time, the attractiveness varies among passengers.
The distribution model allocates the demand to the connection. The higher the
impedance, the lower the percentage of passengers using the connection. Because the
discomfort cannot be described before an assignment, the assignment needs to run
iteratively to estimate the additional impedance. This process can be described as a
learning process. The learning process ends when the defined terminating conditions
are fulfilled. Therefore, the network responds more sensitively to capacity limitations in
respect to feelings of discomfort from crowding.
The default-used linear crowding function in VISUM provokes a slight tendency to more
similarity compared to BusMezzos output in the unlimited and limited scenario
(A_U(MC) vs. A_C(MC(Lin))). To catch the effect more appropriately of a stricter
punishment by exceeding the vehicle capacity, the SSB function with its characteristic
progression is used in addition, hence the model response more sensitive
(A_V(Lin(SC)) vs A_V(SBB(SC))). On the other hand, comparing the output results the
models are more similar except on the line load segment between stop 2, 3 on the pink
line.
In summary it should be remembered that both models assume different approaches to
estimate the behavior of travelers. Aside from the developmental purpose from a short
to middle planning tool (BusMezzo) to a middle to long planning tool (VISUM) implies
different assumptions. Some assumptions are similar and some vary. The average total
travel time represents different things according to the model definition. Only in some
exceptions the travel time can be derived and be comparable. The decision process
also differs from a single decision (VISUM) to a sequence of decisions (BusMezzo)
along the path. This arouses in BusMezzo an overestimation to high-frequented lines.
Otherwise the limitation of capacity is implemented opposingly. VISUM describes the
discomfort due to crowding and has no strict limitation to the vehicle capacity. It tries to
cover the fact by adding additional impedance to overcrowded connections. The
provided functions only work for a realistic range of volume to capacity ratio. When the
network business increases, BusMezzos approach of individual agents covers
overcrowdedness with denied boarding processes, in turn increasing travel time.
Chapter 6.8 deals with the same initial situation but the demand level is increased by
40%. A stepwise increase of the demand representation analyzes and presents
chapter 6.8.1 in an aggregated form.
VuV 2013
82
Model Comparison
Figure 26
VuV 2013
Overview Set_A(Lin)
83
Model Comparison
Figure 27
VuV 2013
Overview Set_A(SBB)
84
Model Comparison
6.8
SET B: Unlimited and Limited Vehicle Capacity with High Demand
The demand increase is the results of an estimation process to the point where denied
boarding takes place but the network is still able to handle the amount of generated
travelers mostly within the generation time. Table 14 specifies the increased demand
representation by 40%. The network index is calculated to 93%.
Table 14
OD-Pairs
40% increased OD travel demand [pax/h]

Stop 1
Stop 2
Stop 3
Stop 4
Stop 5
Stop 1
420
84
420
Stop 2
504
Stop 3
336
Stop 4
Stop 5
504
Like expected, the average total travel time listed in Table 15 increases with the
increase of the demand presentation. But the increase is higher in BusMezzo than in
VISUM. This can be derived from the fact how travel time is defined in each model.
Each denied boarding process implies an additional waiting time and in consequence a
higher travel time. The busier the network, the higher the probability that agents are not
able to board their chosen trip and have to wait at the stop until the next vehicle
approaches. The travel time increases dramatically with the number of denied
boardings. In VISUM the business of the network implies a balanced distribution over
all provided connections in the network. The aim is to shift passengers from highly
utilized to low frequented connections, so that in total the sum of impedance is minimal.
This principal is also known as user defined equilibrium. To achieve this balance some
passengers need to switch from attractive to less attractive connections until the ratio
of loads to capacity multiplied with the travel time of the trip segments balances.
Table 15
Set B ATTT
[min]
BusMezzo
Unlimited Capacity
16,8
Limited Capacity
17,5
VISUM
13,3
13,8 (Lin)
14,4 (SBB)
The unlimited capacity scenario with the increased demand mirrors the results from
set A (A_U(BM); A_U(V) vs. B_U(BM); B_U(V)). The loads are respectively distributed
with the same proportion, but the loads are 40% higher. VISUM considers an increase
of exactly 40%, BusMezzo an increase of approximately 40% within the limit of error
tolerance.
VuV 2013
85
Model Comparison
Because the network is quiet busy, the impact of the scenario comparison (B_BM(SC),
B_V(Lin(SC)); B_V(SBB(SC))) increases from the consequence explained in
chapter 6.7. The effect is more observable using the model VISUM than BusMezzo and
even more clearly using the SBB than the linear crowding function. The results of the
line loads segments are listed in Figure 28 and Figure 29.
In spite of the strict punishment, based on SBB characteristics, the function is not
capable of avoiding overcrowded vehicles exceeding the vehicle capacity with the
default settings mentioned in chapter 5.5. This may arise theoretically from the low
coefficient in the SBB function which implies only a duplication of the trip segment
travel time. For example, the travel time of the trip segments of the yellow line are
relatively short compared to the remaining impedance factors and other lines trip
segments travel time. Therefore, a duplication of travel time does not raise the
impedance level to a high sufficient level apparently. By raising the value of the
coefficient , it should strictly punish connections which exceed the vehicle capacity.
Consequently, a limit is set to board vehicles over the volume to capacity ratio.
By raising the coefficient , it seems like VISUM distributes loads step-by-step to lines
in correlation to the value of . If the value of exceeds a certain value, the results are
non-comprehensible and illogical. Within the scope of the master thesis, it is not
possible to investigate the characteristic of the SBB functions behavior, which leaves
room for additional scientific work.
It should be kept in mind that the provided crowding functions in VISUM have not been
developed to imitate the process of denied boarding. Instead it describes the
discomfort due to crowding. The degree of volume to capacity ratio has a quantifying
range. It would be desirable to implement a function which describes the discomfort of
crowding to a certain level of volume to capacity ratio. After exceeding this level, the
function imitates the behavior of denied boarding with additional high sufficient
impedance. Care should be taken that the iterative process, with such a function,
converges to obtain results.
VuV 2013
86
Model Comparison
Figure 28
VuV 2013
Overview Set_B(Lin)
87
Model Comparison
Figure 29
VuV 2013
Overview Set_B(SBB)
88
Model Comparison
6.8.1
SET B Demand Variation
Set B uses the same default settings as set B except that the demand presentation
varies by the parameter . The parameter simply multiplies the demand presentation
from the base case scenario (Set A) listed in Table 10. The impact of the demand
increase is taken into consideration by taking a look at the aggregated results of the
average total travel time and the number of transfer.
While demand level raises the travel time, each individual agent experienced with
BusMezzo increases with an over proportional correlation Figure 31. This is caused
mainly by the number of denied boardings. The higher the demand increase, the higher
the number of denied boardings, and the higher the average total waiting time which
leads to a higher average total travel time. On the other hand, the impact on the travel
time in VISUM is marginal. Because VISUM does not simulate travelers as individual
passengers and travelers are presented in terms of traffic flows, no actual boarding
process takes place. The origin waiting time is coordinated to the connection hence the
start waiting time is always zero. In addition the waiting time between connections does
not increase by the increase of demand itself, it increases because passengers are
shifted by the choice distribution model to slower connections until the network
balances to the optimum of a minimum of impedance. The choice-set of connections
does not change during the assignment and is considered as static. Therefore, it is not
remarkable that the impact is very low. The in-vehicle time goes twice as input into the
impedance function which will be optimized in the network. One is the parameter invehicle time and the other is the in-vehicle time for each trip segment multiplied with
the output of the crowding function. The major input for the crowding function is the
volume to capacity ratio for each trip segment. Therefore, the in-vehicle time is an
important influence factor in the distribution process. This causes a major difference in
the model structure. In BusMezzo, the in-vehicle time and the travel time is only an
output of the model result. The distribution is the result of the decision process along
the decision path of each individual agent. Of course, the decision itself is influenced by
the parameter of the impedance function and each agent tries to optimize its decision
process. But the system does not optimize the network distribution to a superior aim.
VISUM uses the provided in-vehicle time for each trip segment and the complete
network information (e.g. departure, arrival, transfer time etc.) to optimize passengers
distribution in terms of a network consideration. The travel time can be seen as output
from the internal in-vehicle time distribution optimization.
It is necessary to distinguish between the linear and SBB function while looking at the
results. Taking a look at the linear function, a slight increase of the travel time is
noticeable as impact of the demand increase. The transfer rate still stays at the same
level. Referring to the characteristics of the linear function and its decent punishment to
overcrowded connections, the behavior mirrors in Figure 31. On the contrary, the SBB
function behaves slightly different. Apparently the increased demand level causes an
insignificantly reduction of the travel time. The transfer rate behaves similarly to the
VuV 2013
89
Model Comparison
linear crowding function. Only the amount of transfers is constantly lower. This arises
from the strict punishment of connections in the iterative distribution process. Since the
transfer cost is relatively high, correlated to the low travel time, connections including
one transfer becomes even less attractive. The characterization of the SBB function is
not within the scope of the master thesis and leaves room for further scientific
research.
Figure 30
Seb B Average Total Travel Time
Figure 31
Set B Transfer Rate
VuV 2013
90
Model Comparison
One needs to bear in mind that the travel times are incomparable, because the origin
waiting time is considered in BusMezzo and left out in VISUM. Therefore, only the
quality of the runs is able to be judged. It seems logical that the number of transfers is
higher in BusMezzo than in VISUM. BusMezzo, on the one side, provides a larger
choice-set hence the choice possibility is larger and the number of decisions for each
agents leads to a greater amount of transfer choices. On the other hand, VISUM
reduces the choice-set to logical connections. The logical filtering rule excludes all
connection including a transfer except for the OD-pair 1 to 4. Most of the passengers
from stop 1 to stop 2 take the attractive direct green line and hardly anybody in the
network chooses the alternative of transferring. Except for the alternatives previously
mentioned, the filtering rule eliminates all connections including a transfer. In
combination with the fact that the provided alternative, including a transfer, hold little
probability, explains the general low rate of transfers. The actual transfer rate fluctuates
a little bit by increasing the demand level due to the quantity of passengers choosing
the alternative including one transfer.
6.9
SET D: Frequency and Vehicle Capacity Variation
Capacity constraints may arise from different impacts. The most common case is
probably the increase of the demand presentation, representative for the peak hour,
which has been discussed in the previous chapter. Complementary, the reduction of
the vehicle capacity provokes capacity constraints as well as lowering the frequency of
a line. To analyze the impact of the vehicle capacity and the frequency, the generation
time capacity is lowered by 10% steps.
()
The reduction of the frequency is an approach problem since the value of the
frequency needs to be an integer (relevant for Line 3,4,5). Therefore, the process is
carried out to the best of knowledge to find the optimum between reducing the
frequency and fitting the target of 10% steps. This causes unusual headways. The first
trip departures at the same time as the first run from the base case. All other trips
depend on the estimated frequency on the headway. In the case of vehicle capacity
reduction, the error to the exact value is within half a capacity unit (e.g. seat). This is
relevant for line 4 (90%, 70%). The capacity unit is rounded down to the next integer.
A complete table of the used framework is listed in Table 16 and Table 17. Table 17
shows in the column for one reduction step the selected frequency (Sel. Freq.) which
calculates with the vehicle capacity, the selected GTC (Sel. GTC) and the theoretically
targeted GTC (100% GTC). The results for the travel time and transfer rate are
presented in Figure 32, Figure 33, Figure 34 and Figure 35. The frequency reduction
might have a fluctuating impact on the results. This depends explicitly on the exact
coordination of the trips towards each other. For example, reducing the frequency
might cause a better coordination of a connection with less waiting time.
VuV 2013
91
Model Comparison
Table 16
Vehicle Capacity Variation

Vehicle Capacity [pax]
Line
Frequency
[h -1]
100%
50
90%
45
80%
40
70%
35
60%
30
2
3
50
50
45
45
40
40
35
35
30
30
10
4
4
5
25
50
22
45
20
40
17
35
15
30
20
15
Frequency Variation
Frequency Reduction [h -1]
650
675
160
400
400
600
600
350
350
150
140
350
350
500
525
6
6
2
12
9
100% GTC
450
150
350
Sel. GTC
750
450
400
350
Sel. Freq.
750
180
400
7
7
3
14
10
100% GTC
500
200
400
60%
Sel. GTC
500
450
400
Sel. Freq.
200
450
8
8
3
16
12
100% GTC
200
450
70%
Sel. GTC
500
450
Sel. Freq.
500
9
9
4
18
13
100% GTC
500
80%
Sel. GTC
500
Sel. Freq.
10
10
4
20
15
100% GTC
Sel. Freq.
1
2
3
4
5
90%
Sel. GTC
Line
100%
300
300
300
300
100
120
300
300
450
450
VehCap [pax]
Table 17
10
50
50
50
25
50
As far as the models have been explained in the previous chapters and the reader
obtained a basic understanding of the behavior of the models, it is expected that the
average total travel time in BusMezzo increases with the reduction of the hourly
capacity. Compared with the results of VISUM it presents a qualitative similar picture to
set B. Differences are noticeable in the smoothness of the run and the travel time
using the SBB function. Attention needs to be paid to the scale range, too. The graph
of set B shows only the range from
(100% -250%) demand increase. The
variation of the vehicle capacity and the reduction of the frequency are limited to the
range from
(60% - 100%) of the generation time capacity. The results of
set B and set D cannot be equalized since the proportion of the influence is different.
The influence of increasing the demand by 10% is lower than reducing the frequency or
the vehicle capacity by the same amount. Reducing the vehicle capacity and increasing
the demand level leads in the end to the same results, but the step size is not
comparable. Therefore, the sets need to be analyzed separately and only qualitative
conclusions can be drawn.
VuV 2013
92
Model Comparison
Figure 32
Set D Average Total Travel Time: Vehicle Capacity Reduction
Figure 33
Set D Average Total Travel Time: Frequency Reduction
The transfer rate shows partly a different behavior. Taking a look at the very similar
case of capacity reduction and increasing the demand, the runs show qualitatively
related runs. The linear function mirrors about the same transfer rate in both sets. The
same is valid for the transfer rate using BusMezzo. The only exception in this
comparison is the SBB function. Apparently, there is a tendency to the same number of
transfers while reducing the frequency in each model. All runs seem to aim at the same
level of transfers. But this cannot be proved by looking at the chart and remains an
assumption.
VuV 2013
93
Model Comparison
Figure 34
Set D Transfer Rate: Vehicle Capacity Variation
Figure 35
Set D Transfer Rate: Reducing the frequency
In summary it should be kept in mind that increasing the demand level and decreasing
the vehicle capacity has the same qualitative impact on the assignment results.
Reducing the frequency influences the runs of the travel time and leads to counterrotating processes between BusMezzo and VISUM.
VuV 2013
94
Model Comparison
6.10 SET C: Degree of Information

One of BusMezzos strengths is the possibility to simulate the impact of different
information levels provided to agents. In reality, a large variety exists of how people
use information in their daily lives for the connection choice in public transport systems.
Three of the main reasons why travelers do not always profit from information is either
the access to information is not supported, the required information is not known by the
operator or travelers make no use of it, for example, the required information to take
advantage is provided by the system to travelers via broadband. The information could
be accessible for everybody by using their Smartphones. But not everybody has the
possibility to possess a Smartphone or the capability to use it properly. That means
even if the network provides all available information, still not everybody will
automatically use it. Hence, the impact of network to no real-time information
(BusMezzo) with full timetable knowledge (VISUM) will be discussed in the following
lines. The demand side of the network using BusMezzo is still deterministic and the
conditions correspond to the base case (except the information degree in BusMezzo).
By eliminating the accessibility to information, agents have less knowledge about the
dynamic network situation and due to this less detailed overview of all processes going
on in the system. But this knowledge is required to find the best way through the
network. Hence the decision process is based on an agents expectations, and
therefore less accurate to optimize the path choice. Because agents do not know the
exact travel time and if they are able to reach their connection at the transfer stop, the
coordination worsens. In consequence of it, the average total travel time increases and
the load distribution becomes more extreme compared with the load distribution of
network information. Because the decision process is based on unsure information,
agents decide more often to transfer. Consequently, the transfer rate increases. Table
18 summarizes the results. This should be viewed critically since in real life travelers
might avoid changing more often if the information level is inferior. The behavior is
contrary to the model assumption. It is assumed that less available information forces
travelers to minimize the risk of failing a connection. Therefore, connections with a
minimum of risk are preferred, for example, direct connections are preferred to
connections including a transfer if travelers have less access to information.
The impact of information is only analyzable using BusMezzo. To have a reference
VISUMs average total travel time using the linear function from set A is also listed.
Table 18
RTI Impact
BusMezzo No RTI
BusMezzo Network RTI
VISUM(Lin) Timetable Knowledge
VuV 2013
ATTT [min]
17,16
16,81
13,50
Transfer Rate [%]

8,22
5,81
0,43
95
Model Comparison
The discussed impacts are additionally visible in distribution of the line loads given in
Figure 37. The sketches from the row network real-time information and VISUMs
timetable knowledge are already known from set A (limited capacity scenario). Taking
into consideration the scenario and model comparison, it shows the influence of the
information degree. The results are more extreme. Segments with high-frequented
lines are more loaded and vice versa. The mentioned model differences which are the
reason for the differences become more effective and cause load shiftings. Over all,
BusMezzo is more similar to VISUM if network real-time information is provided.
Another way of looking at the consequences is to consider the distribution of agents
travel time and the corresponding frequency, also known as histogram. Figure 36
shows the results. The values of the relative frequency stacks are higher for low travel
time classes providing network real-time information. In contrast, the number of agents
with longer travel time is higher if no real-time information is accessible. This implies
the shifting from short to long travel time if network or no information is provided.
Figure 36
VuV 2013
Histogram No RTI vs. Network RTI
96
Model Comparison
Figure 37
VuV 2013
Overview Set C
97
Conclusion
7 Conclusion
The aim of the thesis was to facilitate the planners comprehension of the model
characteristics by comparing, explaining, and evaluating the route choice of the
microscopic simulation-based transit assignment model BusMezzo and the
macroscopic schedule-based transit assignment model implement in the software
framework of Visum.
The survey in the context of the thesis was used to estimate the value-of-time for
transferring between transit lines and riding in an overcrowded public transport vehicle.
It was found, that travelers would accept to ride approximately 7 min longer in favor of
not having to transfer transit lines. This value is in line with the values of scientific
literature and confirms its validation.
The second part of the survey dealt with the impact of overcrowded vehicles. The
analysis of the respondents answer shows a linear correlation of travel time.
Different types of congestion, information degree, level of aggregation, and types of
assignment models are presented as preparatory steps to explain the foundations of
the microscopic simulation-based transit assignment model BusMezzo and the
macroscopic schedule-based transit assignment model in VISUM.
The challenge of comparing two transit assignment models, which are structured
differently, is to use an appropriate sample network. The network example needs to be
as simple as possible but still needs to cover all relevant phenomena. On the one
hand, the examples need to include the characteristics of each single model. On the
other hand, a certain degree of complexity is necessary to reflect the specific
assumptions of each model. Before comparing the models, it is required to define the
initial conditions: what is actually comparable and which similarities are achievable?
The main goal is not to simplify the models as much as possible in order to reproduce
the same results. Rather, it is more important to ensure that the same starting condition
is used to evaluate the output data and point out the differences in the models. The
best possible and suitable simplification is used as a compromise.
On a larger scale the level of comparison has to be defined. Considering the supply
side of the schedule-based assignment, it is a deterministic model with reliable
timetable information. This means all trips are on time, no delay is propagated and the
boarding or alighting process does not cause any delay in departure time. This is in
contrast to the stochastically simulation-based model implemented in BusMezzo. To
make the models in some way comparable, BusMezzo is forced to behave
deterministic on the supply side. Forcing BusMezzo to be deterministic and using
network real-time information for all agents equals in reliable timetable knowledge, how
it is defined in the schedule-based transit assignment model for passengers.
VuV 2013
98
Conclusion
To analyze the model differences, the comparison starts on the deterministic

comparable level with the same degree of information. Different sets of scenarios and
subsets are defined to investigate the behavior by using capacity restriction and
discomfort due to crowding by varying the information degree provided to agents.
To capture the effect of overcrowded vehicles BusMezzo uses an absolute limitation of
capacity. If more travelers want to board a vehicle than the vehicle is able to carry,
travelers are rejected and need to wait until the next vehicle approaches or reconsider
the connection choice. In contrast, the schedule-based transit assignment model
describes the phenomenon of overcrowded vehicles by a crowding function. It
describes the feeling of discomfort due to crowding and adds additional impedance to
the connection mainly depending on the ratio of volume to capacity multiplied by the
travel time of the vehicle journey item. But this implementation is not able to capture
the limitation of capacity appropriately since travelers are generally always able to
board a vehicle. This is based on the macroscopic structure of representing demand
and is part of the characteristic of the schedule-based transit assignment model. It
cannot be excluded without changing the structure. Changing the structure means
implementing a different type of model. Therefore, it is important to specify the
congestion function. Exceeding the degree of volume to capacity ratio, the crowding
function should be able to raise the level of unattractiveness to an adequate level that
travelers avoid this connection. The feature is not properly considered at the current
state of implementation.
A major difference between the models is the way they distribute the demand to the
network. The schedule-based transit assignment model first searches for connections
in the network and subsequently filters all reasonable connections. It assigns
impedance, depending on the impedance function, to logical connections and
calculates the distribution of the demand according to the probabilistic distribution
model as a single shot decision. The higher the attractiveness of the connection, the
higher the proportion of the demand for each OD-pair and each time slice. If crowding
is considered, the process is done iteratively until the network situation balances to a
minimum of impedance. Simulation-based transit assignment models do not estimate
connections. Instead, they filter all reasonable paths as fundamental of the dynamically
adaptive decision process. Once the path set is calculated, each traveler faces a
sequence of decisions. The selected connection is not an input for the choice model;
instead it is the result of the dynamic sequence of decisions. During a travelers route,
he/she faces several connections, boarding, and alighting decisions to adapt his/her
decision to the current network conditions. At first glance, this feature is a major
strength compared to the static schedule-based transit assignment model and allows
implementations of real-time information and holding control strategies. In special
cases of high-frequented lines, BusMezzo overestimates the distribution of travelers.
Obviously, a high-frequented line approaches more often than a less frequented line
and travelers need to face a decision more often. Each alternative holds a certain
probability. The traveler choses an actual alternative by picking a randomly generated
VuV 2013
99
Conclusion
number and sets it in correlation to the probability of the alternative. Since all provided
alternatives hold a certain probability, there is a chance that travelers choose this less
attractive option. If this decision needs to be faced several times in a row, the amount
of travelers increases, taking a less attractive line in favor to a high-frequented line.
This shortcoming needs to be compensated by a logical, dynamically adaptive filtering
rule.
By increasing the demand, decreasing the vehicle capacity or reducing the frequency
in order to cause capacity constraints, the average total travel time in BusMezzo raises
significantly because of denied boarding. The schedule-based transit assignment
model covers crowding effects by using additional impedance functions depending on
the ratio between loads and capacity multiplied with the travel time for each vehicle
journey item and distributes the loads to the choice-set, respectively. But the effect is
marginal on passengers travel time because the schedule-based transit assignment
model optimizes the total impedance value to a stochastic user equilibrium.
The comparison between the microscopic simulation-based transit assignment model
BusMezzo and the macroscopic schedule-based transit assignment model in VISUM
clearly showed the strengths and shortcomings of both model classes. Furthermore, it
contributed to the understanding of the basic fundamentals of each model structure
and highlights the right of existence. The appropriate application of the models strongly
depends on the scope of work. The decision which model fits best to the assignment
needs to be considered by the traffic planner and his/her experience. It also showed
that more scientific work needs to be done to compromise the shortcoming (e.g.
crowding function and the limitation of congestion, overestimation to high-frequented
lines, and travel time calculations) to an adequate level of acceptance to approximate
the real behavior.
VuV 2013
100
References
8 References
Centre
for Traffic Research. (2013). Retrieved 09 09, 2013, from

http://www.ctr.kth.se/research.php?research=dymobus
Abkowitz, M., & Tozzi, J. (1987). Research Contributions to Canaging Transit Service
Reliability. Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 21, pp. 47-65.
Boden, M., & Treiber, M. (2009). Nutzergleichgewicht oder Systemoptimum - Die
systemoptimale Verkehrsumlegung in makroskopischen Verkehrsnetzen. 22.
Verkehrswissenschaftlichn Tage, Technische Universitt Dresden, Fakultt
Verkehrswissenschaften Friedrich List.
Boyce, D. (2001). Is the Sequential Travel Forecasting Paradigm Counterproductive?
Civil and Materials Engineering, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago.
Bureau of Puplic Roads. (1964). Traffic Assignment Manual. U.S. Department of
Commerce: Waschington DC, Urban Planing Division.
Burghout. (2011). Mezzo File Formats (Vols. Version 0.1.5, MEZZO Version 0.57).
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Schweden.
Burghout, W. (2004). Hybrid microscopic-mesoscopic traffic simulation. Stockholm,
Schweden: Royal Institute of Technology.
Cantillo, V., & Ortuzar, J. (2005). A semi-compensatory discrete choice model with
explicit attribute thresholds of perception. Transportation Research Part B, 39,
641-657.
Cats, O. (2011). Dynamic Modelling of Transit Operations and Passenger decisions.
Stockholm, Schweden: Royal Institute of Technology KTH.
Cats, O. (2012). BusMezzo - Input/Output formats (Vol. Version 5.4). Stockholm,
Schweden: Royal Institute of Technology KTH.
Dessouky, M., Hall, R., Nowroozi, A., & Maurikas, K. (1999). Bus dispatching at timed
transfer transit stations using bus tracking technology. Transportation Research
Part C, Vol. 7, pp. 187-208, Washington DC.
Dessouky, M., Hall, R., Zhang, L., & Singh, A. (2003). Real-time control of buses for
schedule coordination at a terminal. Transportation Research Part A 37, 145
164.
Dowling, R., Skabardonis, A., & Vassili, A. (2004). Traffic Analysis Toolbox Volume III:
Guidelines for Applying Traffic Microsimulation Modeling Software. U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHA),
Washington DC.: Available at: http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/trafficanalysistools/
tat_vol3/index.htm.
Friedrich, M. (2012). Multimodal Transport Planning. Department for Transport
Planning and Traffic Engineering, Institute for Road and Transport Science,
Univerity of Stuttgart.
Fu, L., & Yang, X. (2002). Design and implementation of bus-holding control strategies
with real-time information. Transportation Research Record 1791, 612.
Gkioulou, Z. (2013). Evaluating the impact of waiting time uncertainty on passengers'
decisions. Stockholm, Schweden: Royal Institute of Technology KTH.
VuV 2013
101
References
Google Maps. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 07, 2013, from https://maps.google.com/

Hicks, C., & Turner, K. (1999). Fundamental concepts in the design of experiments. 5th
edition. Oxford University Press.
ITP, VWI. (2006). Standardisierte Bewertung von Verkehrswegeinvestitionen des
ffentlichen Personennahverkehrs und Folgekostenrechnung. Mnchen,
Stuttgart: ITP Intraplan Consult GmbH, VWI Verkehrswissenschaftliches Institut
GmbH.
Kemper, C. (2006). Dynamische Simulation des Verkehrsablaufs unter Verwendung
statischer
Verflechtungsmatrizen.
Universitt
Hannover,
Fakultt
Bauingenieurwesen und Geodsie.
Kittelson & Associates, KFH Group, Parsons Brinkkerhoff Quade & Douglass, &
Hunter-Zawarski, k. (2003). Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual.
second ed. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Report 100, Washington,
DC.
Lappin, J., & Bottom, J. (2001). Understanding and predicting traveler response to
information: A literature review. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington DC. Available at: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/jpodocs/repts_te/13953_files/
13953.pdf.
Levinson, H. (1983). Analyzing transit travel time performance. Transportation
Research Record 915, pp. 1-6, Washington DC.
Liu, G., & Wirasinghe, S. (2001). A simulation model of reliable schedule design for a
xed transit route. Journal of Advanced Transportation 35 (2), 145174.
Morgen, D. (2002). A Microscopic Simulation Laboratory for Advanced Public Transport
System Evaluation. Master Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of.
Nagel, K., & Schreckenberg, M. (1992). A cellular automaton model for freeway traffic.
France: J. Physics.
Oded, C., & Tomer, T. (2008). Mesoscopic Simulation for Transit Operations. Haifa,
Israel: Technion Israel Institute of Technology Transportation Research
Institute.
Ortzar, J., & Willumsen, L. (2011). Modelling Transport. Wiley.
Papageorgious, M. (1997). Some Remarks on Macroscopic Traffic Flow Modelling.
Technical University of Crete.
Pownall, C., Prior, M., & Segal, J. (2008). What Rail Passengers Will Do to Get a Seat?
Presented at the 21 European Transport Conference 2008, Leeuwenhorst
Conference Centre, The Netherlands.
PTV AG. (2012). Private Communication.
PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals. (2012). Karlsruhe.
PTV VISUM 12.5 User Manual. (2012). Karlsruhe.
Recker, W., & Golob, T. (1979). A non-compensatory model of transportation behavior
based on sequential consideration of attributes. Transportation Research Part
B, 13, 269-280.
VuV 2013
102
References
Spiess, H., & Florian, M. (1988). Optimal Strategies: A New Assignment Model for
Transit Networks. Centre de recherche sur les transports, Universit de
Montral.
Strathman, J., Dueker, K., Kimpel, T., Gerhart, R., Turner, K., Taylor, P., et al. (1999).
Automated bus dispatching, operations control and service reliability.
Transportation Research Record 1666, pp. 28-36, Washington DC.
Sweet, R. (1997). An aggregated measure of travel utility. Transportation Research
Part B, 31 (5), 403-416.
Tan, M., Tong, C., Wong, S., & Xu, J. (2007). An algorithm for finding reasonable paths
in transit networks. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 41 (3), 285-305.
TCRP. (2003). Transit capacity and quality of service manual (TCQSM) 2nd edition.
TCRP Report 100, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
Tirachini, A., Hensher, D., & Rose, J. (2013). Crowding in public transport systems:
Effects on users, operation and implications for the estimation of demand.
Transportation Research Part A P. 36-52.
UK Department of Transport, H. A. (1996). The Design Manual for Roads & Bridges
(DMRB). (http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/dmrb/).
Wardman, M. (2001). Public Transport Values of Time. Leeds, UK: Institute for
Transport Studies.
Wardrop, J. (1952). Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. Proceedings of
the Institution of Cicil Engineers.
Wiedemann, R. (1974). Simulation des Verkehrsflusses. Schriftenreihe des Instituts fr
Verkehrswesen, Heft 8, Universitt (TH) Karlsruhe.
VuV 2013
103
List of Tables
9 List of Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21
Table 22
Table 23
Table 24
Table 25
Table 26
Table 27
Table 28
VuV 2013
Survey Structure .................................................................................... 17

Scale Classification of Supply and Demand ........................................... 59
Modeled Factors .................................................................................... 60
Supply and Demand Comparison ........................................................... 61
Information Degree Comparison............................................................. 62
Comparable Level and Information Degree Rsum .............................. 62
Network characteristics .......................................................................... 66
Scenario Overview ................................................................................. 72
Scenarios of Set A.................................................................................. 73
OD travel demand [pax/h]....................................................................... 74
Set A ATTT ............................................................................................ 75
Set A Transfer Rate................................................................................ 75
Load difference Line Segment 3-4.......................................................... 79
40% increased OD travel demand [pax/h] .............................................. 85
Set B ATTT ............................................................................................ 85
Vehicle Capacity Variation...................................................................... 92
Frequency Variation ............................................................................... 92
RTI Impact ............................................................................................. 95
Survey Part a (General Information) ..................................................... 108
Survey Part b (VoT Transfer) ............................................................... 109
Survey Part c (VoT Overcrowded Vehicles).......................................... 111
VISUM Setting Overview in Form of Screenshots 1.............................. 112
VISUM Setting Overview in Form of Screenshots 2.............................. 113
Timetable of Line 1 ............................................................................... 114
104
List of Figures
10 List of Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Figure 29
Figure 30
VuV 2013
Screenshots Survey ............................................................................... 18

Gender (left), Age (middle), Income (right) ............................................. 19
Education Degree (left), Percentage of Main Means of
Transportations (middle), Public Transport Modes for
Regular Location Chances (right) ........................................................... 19
Value-of-Time Congestion ...................................................................... 21
Aggregation Level according to (PTV AG, 2012) .................................... 24
Types of traffic flow models for private transport
according to (Wiedemann, 1974) and (Kemper, 2006) ........................... 26
Deterministic vs. Stochastic User Equilibrium ......................................... 32
Object-oriented framework for the public transport model
BusMezzo according to (Oded & Tomer, 2008). ..................................... 34
Flowchart of the transit simulation process
according to (Oded & Tomer, 2008) ....................................................... 36
Two-Stage Modeling Approach according to (Cats O. , 2011) ................ 41
Flowchart of the Choice-Set-Generation Model
according to (Cats O. , 2011) ................................................................. 42
Path Generator according to (Cats O. , 2011)
and (Tan, Tong, Wong, & Xu, 2007) ....................................................... 43
Decision tree according to (Cats O. , 2011) ............................................ 46
Path Choice Decision Process according to (Cats O. , 2011) ................. 48
Framework for real-time information modeling in BusMezzo
according to (Cats O. , 2011) ................................................................. 49
Sequence of the general crowding procedure
based on (PTV VISUM 12.5 Fundamentals, 2012) ................................. 55
Assignment Runs with different Crowding Functions .............................. 57
Waiting Time Definition .......................................................................... 63
General Network Representation ........................................................... 66
VISUM Network Representation: General (left),
Implementation (right) ............................................................................ 68
BusMezzo Network Representation ....................................................... 68
Set Overview .......................................................................................... 70
Selection Probabilities between Alternatives .......................................... 77
Timetable of the Yellow and Blue Line:
BusMezzo (left), VISUM (right) ............................................................... 79
Event Trigger Process ............................................................................ 80
Overview Set_A(Lin) .............................................................................. 83
Overview Set_A(SBB) ............................................................................ 84
Overview Set_B(Lin) .............................................................................. 87
Overview Set_B(SBB) ............................................................................ 88
Seb B Average Total Travel Time .......................................................... 90
105
List of Figures
Figure 31
Figure 32
Figure 33
Figure 34
Figure 35
Figure 36
Figure 37
VuV 2013
Set B Transfer Rate ............................................................................... 90

Set D Average Total Travel Time: Vehicle Capacity Reduction .............. 93
Set D Average Total Travel Time: Frequency Reduction ........................ 93
Set D Transfer Rate: Vehicle Capacity Variation .................................... 94
Set D Transfer Rate: Reducing the frequency ........................................ 94
Histogram No RTI vs. Network RTI ........................................................ 96
Overview Set C ...................................................................................... 97
106
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
VuV 2013
Survey
Used Parameter in VISUM
Timetable Details of the Example Network
108
112
114
107
Appendix
Appendix A
Table 19
Survey
Survey Part a (General Information)
1*. Gender
Female
Male
2*. How old are you?
6-18
19-23
24-30
30-60
Over 60
3*. Your highest level of education
Pupil/Trainee
School Degree
University Degree
Doctoral/Postdoctoral
4. Your monthly income [] (if applicable)
[%]
46,3
53,7
[%]
[%]
5,0
33,9
56,6
4,5
[%]
Respondents
112
130
Respondents
5
54
118
60
5
Respondents
12
82
137
11
Respondents
0 - 100
101 - 200
201 300
301 500
501 1000
1001 2000
2001 3000
3001 and more
4,7
4,2
7,5
17,9
17,5
16,0
13,2
18,9
10
9
16
38
37
34
28
40
[%]
Respondents
51,7
13,6
34,7
125
33
84
[%]
Respondents
16,1
47,9
28,1
26,4
34,7
25,6
35,5
0,4
39
116
68
64
84
62
86
1
The transport mode you usually use (single

answer)
Public Transport
Walk/Bicycle
Car/Cap
The transport modes you usually use to go to
6*. wok/school/High school/University (multiple
answers)
5*.
German Rail Way (DB)

Rapid-Transit Railway
Light Rail Transit
Bus
Walk
Bicycle
Car
Cap
VuV 2013
2,1
22,3
48,8
24,8
2,1
108
Appendix
Table 20
7*.
Survey Part b (VoT Transfer)
Which connection do you choose?
[%]
Respondents
0:14 [h:min], 0xTransfer (red)

0:11 [h:min], 1xTransfer (green/blue)
I accept both connections
48,7
9,2
42,1
111
21
96
8*.
[%]
Respondents

18,4
48,7
32,9
42
111
75
9*.
[%]
Respondents
21,9
44,7
33,3
50
102
76
10*. Which connection do you choose?
[%]
Respondents

37,3
22,8
39,9
85
52
91
[%]
Respondents

6,1
84,2
9,6
14
192
22
[%]
Respondents

11,4
65,8
22,8
26
150
52
[%]
Respondents

18,0
47,8
34,2
41
109
78
[%]
Respondents

0,9
95,2
3,9
2
217
9
[%]
Respondents

1,3
95,2
3,5
3
217
8
[%]
Respondents

16,2
59,2
24,6
37
135
56

VuV 2013
109
Appendix
[%]
Respondents

1,3
97,4
1,3
3
222
3
[%]
Respondents

24,1
25,0
50,9
53
55
112
[%]
Respondents

37,7
10,5
51,8
83
23
114
[%]
Respondents

6,4
82,3
11,4
14
181
25
[%]
Respondents

14,5
57,3
28,2
32
126
62
[%]
Respondents

24,5
30,9
44,5
54
68
98
[%]
Respondents

3,2
89,5
7,3
7
197
16
[%]
Respondents

5,5
84,1
10,5
12
185
23
[%]
Respondents

12,7
57,7
29,5
28
127
65
[%]
Respondents

1,4
95,5
3,2
3
210
7
[%]
Respondents

1,8
94,1
4,1
4
207
9
VuV 2013
110
Appendix
Table 21
Survey Part c (VoT Overcrowded Vehicles)

half-full
threefourths
full
Almost
completely
full
28Which connection do you choose?

30*.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.
0:15 [h:min] Transit vehicle is half-full (red)

0:10 [h:min] Transit vehicle is [XXX] (blue)
4,2
70,9
24,9
9
151
53
19,2
52,6
28,2
41
112
60
43,2
33,3
23,5
92
71
50

33*.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.

2,3
82,2
15,5
5
175
33
16,9
65,3
17,8
36
139
38
40,8
31,9
27,2
87
68
58

36*.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.

3,3
82,2
14,6
7
175
31
17,4
64,3
18,3
37
137
39
50,2
29,6
20,2
107
63
43

39*.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.

2,4
88,2
9,4
5
187
20
17,9
66,0
16,0
38
140
34
46,2
34,4
19,3
98
73
41

42*.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.

0,5
93,9
5,7
1
199
12
16,5
71,2
12,3
35
151
26
41,0
41,0
17,9
87
87
38

45*.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.

0,9
96,7
2,4
2
204
5
6,6
87,2
6,2
14
184
13
26,5
62,6
10,9
56
132
23

48*.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.
[%]
R.

0,5
98,1
1,4
1
208
3
14,2
81,1
4,7
30
172
10
41,0
50,5
8,5
87
107
18
VuV 2013
111
Appendix
Appendix B
Table 22
VuV 2013
Used Parameter in VISUM

VISUM Setting Overview in Form of Screenshots 1
112
Appendix
Table 23
VuV 2013
VISUM Setting Overview in Form of Screenshots 2
113
Appendix
Appendix C
Table 24
Timetable Details of the Example Network
Timetable of Line 1
Stop 1
Table 25
Stop 2
Timetable of Line 2
Stop 3
Stop 1
Stop 4
Dep.
Arr.
Dep.
Arr.
Dep.
Arr.
Trip1
7.24
7.31
7.33
7.39
Trip1
7.32
7.57
Trip2
7.30
7.37
7.39
7.45
Trip2
7.38
8.03
Trip3
7.36
7.43
7.45
7.51
Trip3
7.44
8.09
Trip4
7.42
7.49
7.51
7.57
Trip4
7.50
8.15
Trip5
7.48
7.55
7.57
8.03
Trip5
7.56
8.21
Trip6
7.54
8.01
8.03
8.09
Trip6
8.02
8.27
Trip7
8.00
8.07
8.09
8.15
Trip7
8.08
8.33
Trip8
8.06
8.13
8.15
8.21
Trip8
8.14
8.39
Trip9
8.12
8.19
8.21
8.27
Trip9
8.20
8.45
Trip10
8.18
8.25
8.27
8.33
Trip10
8.26
8.51
Trip11
8.24
8.31
8.33
8.39
Trip11
8.32
8.57
Trip12
8.30
8.37
8.39
8.45
Trip12
8.38
9.03
Trip13
8.36
8.43
8.45
8.51
Trip13
8.44
9.09
Trip14
8.42
8.49
8.51
8.57
Trip14
8.50
9.15
Trip15
8.48
8.55
8.57
9.03
Trip15
8.56
9.21
Trip16
8.54
9.01
9.03
9.09
Trip16
9.02
9.27
Trip17
9.00
9.07
9.09
9.15
Table 26
Timetable of Line 3
Stop 2
Stop 3
Stop 4
Dep.
Arr.
Dep.
Arr.
Trip1
7.26
7.30
7.32
7.36
Trip2
7.41
7.45
7.47
7.51
Trip3
7.56
8.00
8.02
8.06
Trip4
8.11
8.15
8.17
8.21
Trip5
8.26
8.30
8.32
8.36
Trip6
8.41
8.45
8.47
8.51
Trip7
8.56
9.00
9.02
9.06
VuV 2013
114
Appendix
Table 27
Timetable of Line 4
Table 28
Timetable of Line 5
Stop 3
Stop 4
Stop 5
Stop 4
Dep.
Arr.
Dep.
Arr.
Trip1
7.30
7.40
Trip1
7.32
7.47
Trip2
7.33
7.43
Trip2
7.36
7.51
Trip3
7.36
7.46
Trip3
7.40
7.55
Trip4
7.39
7.49
Trip4
7.44
7.59
Trip5
7.42
7.52
Trip5
7.48
8.03
Trip6
7.45
7.55
Trip6
7.52
8.07
Trip7
7.48
7.58
Trip7
7.56
8.11
Trip8
7.51
8.01
Trip8
8.00
8.15
Trip9
7.54
8.04
Trip9
8.04
8.19
Trip10
7.57
8.07
Trip10
8.08
8.23
Trip11
8.00
8.10
Trip11
8.12
8.27
Trip12
8.03
8.13
Trip12
8.16
8.31
Trip13
8.06
8.16
Trip13
8.20
8.35
Trip14
8.09
8.19
Trip14
8.24
8.39
Trip15
8.12
8.22
Trip15
8.28
8.43
Trip16
8.15
8.25
Trip16
8.32
8.47
Trip17
8.18
8.28
Trip17
8.36
8.51
Trip18
8.21
8.31
Trip18
8.40
8.55
Trip19
8.24
8.34
Trip19
8.44
8.59
Trip20
8.27
8.37
Trip20
8.48
9.03
Trip21
8.30
8.40
Trip21
8.52
9.07
Trip22
8.33
8.43
Trip22
8.56
9.11
Trip23
8.36
8.46
Trip23
9.00
9.15
Trip24
8.39
8.49
Trip25
8.42
8.52
Trip26
8.45
8.55
Trip27
8.48
8.58
Trip28
8.51
9.01
Trip29
8.54
9.04
Trip30
8.57
9.07
Trip31
9.00
9.10
VuV 2013
115

MA - Hartl Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MA - Hartl Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Thesis Nr.

Route choice in macroscopic and

Author: Maximilian Hartl, BSc.

Supervisors: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Markus Friedrich

defined to investigate the influence of varying the information degree provided to

Stuttgart, den 15.10.2013

Automated Data Collection

Automated Passenger Counts

Average Total Travel Time describes the average time a

Automated Vehicle Location

describes the spatial and time depending choice between an

Generation Time Capacity

is a number with no fractional part Z={0-2,-1,0,1,2,}

is defined between two nodes

is the amount of travelers on a link/trip/connection

Model (BusMezzo or VISUM)

Multinomial Logit Model

starting or ending point of a link

Relation between origin and destination

Scenarios are a subset of a set and describes the actual model

A Set is a group of scenario with the same general conditions

is the location where transit users might start, transfer or

Transit Assignment Model

General expression with no model relation

refers to a single vehicle which serves one run of the schedule

is defined between to stops

BusMezzo Related Expressions

Represents a single traveler in the network

Waiting Time is defined as time an agent needs to transfer

VISUM Related Expressions

Represents the amount of travelers in the network in terms of

Perceived Journey Time

Schedule-Based Transit Assignment Model

Waiting Time is defined as time a passenger needs to transfer

Structure of the Survey

Traffic Modeling Fundamentals

Traffic Model Principles

Private Traffic Assignment Models

Public Transit Assignment Models

Stochastic or Deterministic User Equilibrium

Simulation-Based Transit Assignment Model

Dynamic Path Choice Model

Schedule-Based Transit Assignment Model

Impedance and perceived journey time of a connection

Comparable Level and Information Degree

Simplifications to make the models comparable

Travel Time Correlation

Set and Scenario Overview

SET A: Unlimited and Limited Vehicle Capacity with Low Demand

SET B: Unlimited and Limited Vehicle Capacity with High Demand

SET B Demand Variation

SET D: Frequency and Vehicle Capacity Variation

SET C: Degree of Information

A task of traffic engineers is to investigate the impact of traffic demand on past,

BusMezzo which contributes to the description of the example network. Subsequently,

Structure of the Survey

Part Type of Query

General information (Table 19)

Estimating the value-of-time for overcrowded vehicles (Table 21)

Gender (left), Age (middle), Income (right)

Education Degree (left), Percentage of Main Means of Transportations

To estimate the value-of-time for the coefficient of the transferring parameter or

Value-of-Time for One Transfer