The Theory of Transit Assignment: Basic Modelling Frameworks

  • Guido GentileEmail author
  • Michael Florian
  • Younes Hamdouch
  • Oded Cats
  • Agostino Nuzzolo
Part of the Springer Tracts on Transportation and Traffic book series (STTT)


In this chapter, the different basic assumptions for the development of assignment models to transit networks (frequency-based, schedule-based) are presented together with the possible approaches to the simulation of the dynamic system (steady state, macroscopic flows, agent-based).


  1. Alfa AS, Chen MY (1995) Temporal distribution of public transport demand during the peak period. Eur J Oper Res 83:137–153CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Amin-Naseri MR, Baradaran V (2014) Accurate estimation of average waiting time in public transportation systems. Transp Sci 49:213–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andreasson I. (1976) A method for the analysis of transit networks. In: Roubens M (ed) Proceedings of the 2nd European congress on operations research, North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  4. Balmer M, Rieser M, Meister K, Charypar D, Lefebvre N, Nagel K (2008) MATSim-T: architecture and simulation times. In: Bazzan ALC, Klügl F (ed) Multi-agent systems for traffic and transportation engineering. Information science reference, Hershey, pp 57–78Google Scholar
  5. Bellei G, Gentile G, Papola N (2005) A within-day dynamic traffic assignment model for urban road networks. Transp Res B 39:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bellei G, Gentile G, Meschini L, Papola N (2006) A demand model with departure time choice for within-day dynamic traffic assignment. Eur J Oper Res 175:1557–1576CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bellman R (1958) On a routing problem. Q Appl Math 16:87–90zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowman LA, Turnquist MA (1981) Service frequency, schedule reliability and passenger wait times at transit stops. Transportation Research A 15:465–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cantarella GE (1997) A general fixed-point approach to multimode multi-user equilibrium assignment with elastic demand. Transp Sci 31:107–128CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Cantarella GE, Cascetta E (1995) Dynamic processes and equilibrium in transportation networks: towards a unifying theory. Transp Sci 29:305–329CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Cats O (2013) Multi-agent transit operations and assignment model. Proc Comput Sci 19:809–814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cats O, Burghout W, Toledo T, Kousopoulos HN (2010) Mesoscopic modeling of bus public transportation. Transp Res Rec 2188:9–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cats O, Kousopoulos HN, Burghout W, Toledo T (2011) Effect of real-time transit information on dynamic path choice of passengers. Transp Res Rec 2217:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chriqui C, Robillard P (1975) Common bus lines. Transp Sci 9:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Cea J, Fernandez JE (1989) Transit assignment to minimal routes: an efficient new algorithm. Traffic Eng Control 30:491–494Google Scholar
  16. Dial RB (1967) Transit pathfinder algorithm. Highw Res Board 205:67–85Google Scholar
  17. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numer Math 1:269–271CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Ettema D, Jong K, Timmermans H, Bakema A (2007) PUMA: multi-agent modelling of urban systems. In: Koomen E et al (eds) Modelling land-use change, pp 237–258Google Scholar
  19. Fearnside K, Draper DP (1971) Public transport assignment—a new approach. Traffic Eng Control 13:298–299Google Scholar
  20. Friedrich M, Hofsaess I, Wekeck S (2001) Timetable-based transit assignment using branch and bound techniques. Transp Res Rec 1752:100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gallo G, Longo G, Nguyen S, Pallottino S (1993) Directed hypergraphs and applications. Discrete Appl Math 42:177–201CrossRefMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  22. Gao W, Balmer M, Miller EJ (2010) Comparisons between MATSim and EMME/2 on the greater Toronto and Hamilton area network. Transp Res Rec 2197:118–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gentile G (2010) The general link transmission model for dynamic network loading and a comparison with the due algorithm. In: Immers LGH, Tampere CMJ, Viti F (eds) New developments in transport planning: advances in Dynamic Traffic Assignment (selected papers from the DTA 2008 conference, Leuven). Transport economics, management and policy series. Edward Elgar Publishing, MA, pp 153–178Google Scholar
  24. Gentile G (2015) Using the general link transmission model in a dynamic traffic assignment to simulate congestion on urban networks. Transp Res Proc 5:66–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gentile G, Papola A (2006) An alternative approach to route choice simulation: the sequential models. In: Proceedings of the European transport conference, Strasbourg, FranceGoogle Scholar
  26. Gentile G, Meschini L, Papola N (2005) Spillback congestion in dynamic traffic assignment: a macroscopic flow model with time-varying bottlenecks. Transp Res B 41:1114–1138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hickman MD, Bernstein DH (1997) Transit service and path choice models in stochastic and time-dependent networks. Transp Sci 31:129–146CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. Jolliffe JK, Hutchinson TP (1975) A behavioral explanation of the association between bus and passenger arrivals at a bus stop. Transp Sci 9:248–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Larson RC, Odoni AR (1981) Urban operations research. Prentice-Hall, Englewoods CliffsGoogle Scholar
  30. Last A, Leak SE (1976) Transept: a bus model. Traffic Eng Control 17:14–20Google Scholar
  31. Le Clercq F (1972) A public transport assignment method. Traffic Eng Control 14:91–96Google Scholar
  32. Meignan D, Simonin O, Koukam A (2007) Simulation and evaluation of urban bus-networks using a multiagent approach. Simul Model Pract Theory 15:659–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Meschini L, Gentile G, Papola N (2007) A frequency based transit model for dynamic traffic assignment to multimodal networks. In: Allsop R, Bell MGH, Heydecker BG (eds) Proceedings of the 17th international symposium on transportation and traffic theory (ISTTT). Elsevier, London, pp 407–436Google Scholar
  34. Moller-Pedersen J (1999) Assignment model of timetable based systems (TPSCHEDULE). In: Proceedings of 27th European transportation forum, seminar F, Cambridge, England, pp 159–168Google Scholar
  35. Nguyen S, Pallottino S, Malucelli F (2001) A modeling framework for passenger assignment on a transport network with timetables. Transp Sci 35:238–249CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Nielsen OA (2000) A stochastic transit assignment model considering differences in passengers utility functions. Transp Res B 34:377–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nielsen OA (2004) A large-scale stochastic multi-class schedule-based transit model with random coefficients. In: Wilson NHM, Nuzzolo A (eds) Schedule-based dynamic transit modeling: theory and applications. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp 53–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nielsen OA, Jovicic G (1999) A large-scale stochastic timetable-based transit assignment model for route and sub-mode choices. Transp Plann Methods 434:169–184Google Scholar
  39. Nuzzolo A, Russo F (1998) A dynamic network loading model for transit services. In: Proceedings of TRAISTAN III, San Juan, Puerto RicoGoogle Scholar
  40. Nuzzolo A, Russo F, Crisalli U (2001) A doubly dynamic schedule-based assignment model for transit networks. Transp Sci 35:268–285CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. Osuna E, Newell G (1972) Control strategies for an idealized public transportation system. Transp Sci 6:52–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pallottino S, Scutellà MG (1998) Shortest path algorithms in transportation models: classical and innovative aspects. In: Marcotte P, Nguyen S (eds) Equilibrium and advanced transportation modelling. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 245–281Google Scholar
  43. Salvini P, Miller EJ (2005) ILUTE: an operational prototype of a comprehensive microsimulation model of urban systems. Netw Spat Econ 5:217–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sheffi Y (1984) Urban transportation networks: equilibrium analysis with mathematical programming methods. Prentice-Hall, NJGoogle Scholar
  45. Sumi T, Matsumoto Y, Miyaki Y (1990) Departure time and route choice of commuters on mass transit systems. Transp Res B 24:247–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Toledo T, Cats O, Burghout W, Koutsopoulos HN (2010) Mesoscopic simulation for transit operations. Transp Res C 18:896–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tong CO, Wong SC (1999) A stochastic transit assignment model using a dynamic schedule-based network. Transp Res B 33:107–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. TRB (2013) TCRP Report 165–Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, 3rd EditionGoogle Scholar
  49. Wahba M, Shalaby A (2005) Multiagent learning-based approach to transit assignment problem a prototype. Transp Res Rec 1926:96–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang J, Wahba M, Miller EJ (2010) A comparison of an agent-based transit assignment procedure (MILATRAS) with conventional approaches city of Toronto transit network. In: Proceedings of the 89th transportation research board annual meeting, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  51. Watling D (1999) Stability of the stochastic equilibrium assignment problem: a dynamical systems approach. Transp Res B 33:281–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yperman I (2007) The link transmission model for dynamic network loading. PhD thesis, Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guido Gentile
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael Florian
    • 2
  • Younes Hamdouch
    • 4
  • Oded Cats
    • 3
  • Agostino Nuzzolo
    • 5
  1. 1.DICEA - Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile, Edile e AmbientaleSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.CIRRELTUniversity of MontrealSuccursale Centre-ville MontréalCanada
  3. 3.Department of Transport and PlanningDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  4. 4.College of Business & EconomicsUnited Arab Emirates UniversityAl AinUnited Arab Emirates
  5. 5.Department of Enterprise EngineeringUniversity of Rome Tor VergataRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations