Modelling public transport on‐board congestion: comparing schedule‐based and agent‐based assignment approaches and their implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Transit systems are subject to congestion that influences system performance and level of service. The evaluation of measures to relieve congestion requires models that can capture their network effects and passengers' adaptation. In particular, on‐board congestion leads to an increase of crowding discomfort and denied boarding and a decrease in service reliability. This study performs a systematic comparison of alternative approaches to modelling on‐board congestion in transit networks. In particular, the congestion‐related functionalities of a schedule‐based model and an agent‐based transit assignment model are investigated, by comparing VISUM and BusMezzo, respectively. The theoretical background, modelling principles and implementation details of the alternative models are examined and demonstrated by testing various operational scenarios for an example network. The results suggest that differences in modelling passenger arrival process, choice‐set generation and route choice model yield systematically different passenger loads. The schedule‐based model is insensitive to a uniform increase in demand or decrease in capacity when caused by either vehicle capacity or service frequency reduction. In contrast, nominal travel times increase in the agent‐based model as demand increases or capacity decreases. The marginal increase in travel time increases as the network becomes more saturated. Whilst none of the existing models capture the full range of congestion effects and related behavioural responses, existing models can support different planning decisions. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".