The Effect of Route-choice Strategy on Transit Travel Time Estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates of travel time by public transit often rely on the calculation of a shortest-path between two points for a given departure time. Such shortest-paths are time-dependent and not always stable from one moment to the next. Given that actual transit passengers necessarily have imperfect information about the system, their route selection strategies are heuristic and cannot be expected to achieve optimal travel times for all possible departures. Thus an algorithm that returns optimal travel times at all moments will tend to underestimate real travel times all else being equal. While several researchers have noted this issue none have yet measured the extent of the problem. This study observes and measures this effect by contrasting two alternative heuristic routing strategies to a standard shortest-path calculation. The Toronto Transit Commission is used as a case study and we model actual transit operations for the agency over the course of a normal week with archived AVL data transformed into a retrospective GTFS dataset. Travel times are estimated using two alternative route-choice assumptions: 1) habitual selection of the itinerary with the best average travel time and 2) dynamic choice of the next-departing route in a predefined choice set. It is shown that most trips present passengers with a complex choice among competing itineraries and that the choice of itinerary at any given moment of departure may entail substantial travel time risk relative to the optimal outcome. In the context of accessibility modelling, where travel times are typically considered as a distribution, the optimal path method is observed in aggregate to underestimate travel time by about 3-4 minutes at the median and 6-7 minutes at the \nth{90} percentile for a typical trip.
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 | 0.020 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".