New Indicators in the Performance Analysis of a Public Transport Interchange Using Microsimulation Tools - The Colégio Militar Case Study

  • André RamosEmail author
  • João de Abreu e Silva
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 879)


Public transport network organization should allow efficient and comfortable transfers in interchanges, but these infrastructures are often associated with high pedestrian flows and constraints on pedestrian movement, which discourages their use. The analysis methods for the performance of public transport interchanges are usually based on aggregate values, which may result in highly optimistic results. However, the development of microsimulation tools provides a generous amount of data, allowing the development of new ways of measuring these infrastructures’ performance. Based on the idea that using average values should lead to optimistic results, and using data from the Colégio Militar/Luz subway station (in Lisbon), new indicators related to the level of service using microsimulation tools are suggested, proving that there can be different conclusions about the interchange’s performance.


Pedestrian circulation Public transport interchanges Level of service Microsimulation 


  1. 1.
    Shah, J., Joshi, G., Parida, P.: Behavioral characteristics of pedestrian flow on stairway at railway station. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 104, 688–697 (2013). Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sun, L., Rong, J., Yao, L.: Measuring transfer efficiency of urban public transportation terminals by data envelopment analysis. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 136, 314–319 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang, L., Jia, H., Juan, Z., Zhang, J.: Service level classification of facilities in passenger terminals based on pedestrian flow characteristics analysis. In: ICCTP 2010: Integrated Transportation Systems: Green, Intelligent, Reliable - Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of Chinese Transportation Professionals, pp 2581–2589 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhang, R., Li, Z., Hong, J., et al.: Research on characteristics of pedestrian traffic and simulation in the underground transfer hub in Beijing. In: ICCIT 2009 – 4th International Conference on Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology, pp. 1352–1357 (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davidich, M., Geiss, F., Mayer, H.G., et al.: Waiting zones for realistic modelling of pedestrian dynamics: a case study using two major German railway stations as examples. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 37, 210–222 (2013). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galiza, R., Kim, I., Ferreira, L., Laufer, J.: Modelling Pedestrian Circulation in Rail Transit Stations Using Micro-Simulation, pp 1–24 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fruin, J.J.: Pedestrian Planning and Design. Revised Edition, Elevator World (1987)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    TRB: Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edit. Transport Research Board, Washington, D.C. (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Gersigny, M.R., Hermant, L.F.L., Hermann, R., Ahuja, R.: Applying microscopic pedestrian simulation to the design assessment of various railway stations in South Africa. In: 29th Annual Southern African Transport Conference, pp. 334–344. Pretoria, South Africa (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Helbing, D., Molnár, P.: Social force model for pedestrian dynamics. Phys. Rev. E 51, 4282–4286 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johansson, A., Helbing, D., Shukla, P.K.: Specification of a microscopic pedestrian model by evolutionary adjustment to video tracking data. Adv. Complex Syst. 10, 271–288 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kretz, T.: On oscillations in the social force model on oscillations in the social force model. Phys. A 438, 272–285 (2015). Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moussaïd, M., Perozo, N., Garnier, S., et al.: The walking behaviour of pedestrian social groups and its impact on crowd dynamics. PLoS ONE 5, 1–7 (2010). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kretz, T., Große, A., Hengst, S., et al.: Quickest paths in simulations of pedestrians. Adv. Complex. Syst. 14(5), 733–759 (2011). Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Abreu e Silva, J., Bazrafshan, H.: User satisfaction of intermodal transfer facilities in Lisbon, Portugal. Transp. Res. Rec. 2350, 102–110 (2013).
  16. 16.
    Helbing, D., Buzna, L., Johansson, A., Werner, T.: Self-organized pedestrian crowd dynamics: experiments, simulations, and design solutions. Transp. Sci. 39, 1–24 (2005). Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cortés, C.E., Burgos, V., Fernández, R.: Modelling passengers, buses and stops in traffic microsimulation: review and extensions. J. Adv. Transp. 44, 72–88 (2010). Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galiza, R., Ferreira, L.: A methodology for determining equivalent factors in heterogeneous pedestrian flows. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 39, 162–171 (2013). Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fellendorf, M., Vortisch, P.: Microscopic traffic flow simulator VISSIM. In: Fundamentals of Traffic Simulation. Jaume Barceló, pp. 63–93 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    PTV: PTV VISSIM 7 User Manual. PTV Planug Trasport Verker AG (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TIS – Consultores em TransportesInovação e SistemasLisboaPortugal
  2. 2.CERIS/CESUR, Instituto Superior TécnicoUniversidade de LisboaLisboaPortugal

Personalised recommendations