Integrating Bus Holding Control Strategies and Schedule Recovery: Simulation-Based Comparison and Recommendation

In the absence of control strategies, headway fluctuation and bus bunching are commonly observed in transit operation due to the stochastic attributes such as travel time and passenger demand. Existing research on real-time control largely focused on developing operational tactics to maintain bus ar...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of advanced transportation 2018-01, Vol.2018 (2018), p.1-13
Main Authors: Wu, Weitiao, Jin, Wenzhou, Liu, Ronghui
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adjustment
Bus drivers
Buses
Computer simulation
Constraint modelling
Context
Driver behavior
Mathematical programming
Passengers
Predictive analytics
Propagation
Public transportation
Recovery
Schedules
Tactics
Travel demand
Travel time
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In the absence of control strategies, headway fluctuation and bus bunching are commonly observed in transit operation due to the stochastic attributes such as travel time and passenger demand. Existing research on real-time control largely focused on developing operational tactics to maintain bus arrival regularity at stops without fully considering the effect of schedule recovery. This paper investigates the effect of bus driver behavior on bus holding control strategies and more specifically their effort in catching up with schedule in case of delay, i.e., schedule recovery. To this end, this paper first proposes a bus propagation model with capacity constraint to simulate the evolution of bus trajectories along a fixed route. It proceeds to explicitly incorporate both holding control actions and schedule recovery effect into the bus propagation model. Using simulation for a high-frequency bus line in Guangzhou, China, schedule- (SH) and headway-based holding (HH) control strategies are compared under various operational settings in the context of schedule recovery. These comparisons show that SH performs better under certain conditions, and SH generally benefits more from schedule recovery than HH. These results provide insights into the bus stop layout design and implementation of holding methods in the context of cruising guidance.
ISSN:0197-6729
2042-3195
DOI:10.1155/2018/9407801