Dynamic Assignment-Simulation
Methodology for Multimodal
Urban Transit Networks
.
I . Ömer Verbas, Hani S. Mahmassani, and Michael F. Hyland
This paper presents an integrated transit assignment-simulation tool.
Finding least cost hyperpaths in a large-scale network and assigning
travelers onto these paths are computationally challenging problems.
Moreover, modeling the spatial and temporal complexities in a transit
network that result from the discontinuities in transit events, such as
missing a connection and not receiving a seat, exacerbates the issue
of capturing realism. These challenges are overcome by (a) using a least
cost hyperpath algorithm that captures the multimodal, multi­pattern,
time-, and approach-dependent features of a transit network to provide
realistic optimal strategies; (b) using a gap-based assignment approach
to reach fast convergence; and (c) developing a multiagent particle
simulation platform that is able to capture the heterogeneities and the
discontinuities in travel. The platform was tested on the Chicago Transit
Authority network of 14,000 nodes and 64,000 links; 1.25 million travel-
ers were assigned and simulated, along with 21,000 tran­sit vehicles. The
assignment-simulation framework can be used as a network evaluation
tool to assist decision making at the strategic and operational levels.
Public transit plays an essential role in the transportation of indi-
viduals in every major city in the United States and around the
world. It provides affordable mobility to those without access to
personal vehicles; it provides improved accessibility and mobility
to all urban residents in dense cities with high vehicular traffic lev-
els; it can also offer a number of environmental benefits. The impor-
tance of public transit, along with the budgetary constraints faced by
city and state transportation decision makers, requires these decision
makers to effectively allocate the limited resources available to them.
This paper introduces a comprehensive transit assignment-simulation
framework. It is composed of (a) a time-dependent least cost hyper-
path algorithm (1), (b) a gap-based transit assignment algorithm, and
(c) a multiagent particle simulation platform. A review of the litera-
ture related to these three fields (a to c) is presented below. The unique
contributions of a and b are discussed in Verbas and Mahmassani and
a subsequent work, respectively (1). The main contributions of this
study are, first, a simulation platform that captures the spatial and
temporal complexities of a regional transit network, including het-
erogeneity in waiting times, discontinuities in seating and standing,
discontinuities in boarding and being rejected, as well as transfers and
missed connections and, second, the integration of the three compo-
Transportation Center, Northwestern University, 600 Foster Street, Evanston,
IL 60208. Corresponding author: H. S. Mahmassani, masmah@northwestern.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2498, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2015, pp. 64–74.
DOI: 10.3141/2498-08
64
nents (a to c), which provides transportation decision makers with an
invaluable tool to assess the effectiveness of strategic-level (e.g., add,
remove, and alter transit lines) and operational-level (e.g., transit line
frequency setting) transit decisions.
“Assigning” individuals (i.e., travelers) to specific paths in a trans-
portation network has a number of practical uses, many of which relate
to transportation planning and forecasting. By using the Beckmann
et al. mathematical programming formulation (2), which mathemati-
cally describes a transportation network in a state of user equilibrium
(3), and the Frank–Wolfe algorithm (4), transportation planners are
able to “statically” assign individuals to the road network. Sheffi
provides a thorough, stand-alone reference for understanding and
using static road network assignment algorithms (5). Merchant
and Nemhauser introduced a dynamic traffic assignment model and
algorithm (6). Dynamically modeling vehicles in a transportation
network allows modelers to relax an unrealistic assumption made
in static network assignment models that link travel times and flows
are constant over a given time period (7).
Dial (8) and Le Clercq (9) were early contributors to the modern
transit assignment problem. Their work assumes that transit travelers
choose the single best path before arriving at their destination. This
assumption was later replaced by a more realistic “optimal strategy”
approach (10), which is also referred to as the “hyperpath” approach
in the literature (11). Rather than selecting a single best path to arrive
at their destination, travelers can reduce their expected total travel
time by considering multiple transit lines (10, 11). The set of all paths
and routes a transit traveler considers is referred to as a “hyperpath.”
Nguyen and Pallottino (11) apply Wardrop’s user equilibrium prin-
ciple to the case of hyperpaths (3); hence, their formulation requires
each traveler to choose the least cost hyperpath. The optimal strategy
requires travelers to take the first transit vehicle in their attractive set
to arrive at the transit station. The attractive set is the set of all transit
lines of which excluding or including another line would increase
the expected travel time. Finding the correct subset of transit lines to
include in one’s attractive set is also referred to in the literature as the
“common lines” problem (12).
Spiess and Florian also consider the effects of congestion in their
transit assignment algorithm; however, a cost function that incor-
porates demand factors is not included (10). De Cea and Fernandez
(13) and Wu et al. (14) explicitly include the effects of congestion
via passenger loads into their assignment algorithm; however, both
algorithms include a “soft capacity restriction” whereby travelers are
never explicitly prevented from boarding a vehicle although there is
a waiting cost penalty that tends to infinity as vehicles approach their
carrying capacity. Cepeda et al. use a method of successive averages to
solve the transit assignment problem with congestion effects and soft
capacity restrictions (15). Hamdouch and Lawphongpanich show the
Verbas, Mahmassani, and Hyland
existence of a solution in a mathematical formulation with “hard”
capacity constraints (16).
Hamdouch et al. increase the realism and applicability of the transit
assignment problem by distinguishing between seated and standing
travelers in their capacity constrained analytical transit assignment
model (17). Schmocker et al. propose a formulation that considers
seat capacity in a spatially expanded network, whereby travelers make
route choice decisions based on the probability of finding a seat on
different routes (i.e., the cost associated with standing in a transit
vehicle is different from sitting in a transit vehicle on one’s journey)
(18). However, this formulation assumes unlimited standing capac-
ity. Cominetti and Correa include walking links in their formulation
(19). Walking links allow travelers to walk between transit stops or
even forgo a transit leg if it is faster to walk than to wait for and ride
a transit vehicle.
Other, rule-based assignment techniques have also been proposed
and used primarily in the context of service design procedures (20, 21).
Several transit simulation tools have been developed to assist plan-
ners with operational and strategic decisions, but none of these
are used in the transit assignment framework (22). MILATRAS
is a simulation tool created to solve the transit assignment prob-
lem (23). MILATRAS is a microscopic, learning-based, stochastic,
non-equilibrium-based simulation-assignment tool. MATSIM is an
open source transit simulation tool that seeks to converge a tran-
sit simulation toward user equilibrium (24). An early simulation-
assignment framework for intermodal networks was presented by
Abdelghany and Mahmassani, but it only considered congestion on
the road network and did not consider transit capacity constraints;
its scalability to large-scale networks was also limited (25). More
recently, work by Noh et al. (26) and Noh (27) developed a transit
assignment logic for large-scale networks intended to interface with
a road highway simulator. Unlike the stochastic non-equilibrium-
based MILATRAS, the simulation-assignment model described in
this paper is an equilibrium-based, deterministic simulation model
to be used in the transit assignment framework. A similar freight
transportation simulation-assignment model was introduced by
Mahmassani et al. (28). Their model analyzes the transportation of
multiproduct, intermodal freight over a given network. The model was
successfully implemented on a large-scale intermodal rail network
spanning the continent of Europe (29).
Methodological Features
This section presents the overall transit assignment and simulation
algorithm followed by three detailed subsections that discuss multi­
modal least cost hyperpath calculation, transit assignment, and tran-
sit simulation. These subalgorithms are integrated into an iterative
framework to reach equilibrium for large-scale transit networks with
vehicle seating and capacity constraints.
Main Algorithm
Figure 1 presents the flowchart of the assignment and simulation
algorithm used in this study. The algorithm starts by reading the
input data followed by a convergence check, which is skipped at the
first iteration. Next, the algorithm builds least cost hyperpath trees
sequentially for every destination zone in the network. Once the
time-dependent, multimodal least cost hyperpath tree is constructed
from all nodes to the destination zone in question, the algorithm
loops over all travelers going to that destination. Next, two decisions
are made: first, the algorithm determines whether or not the traveler
65
will keep her previous path (applies only after the first iteration). In
this case, several rules are applied to determine whether she is to
be switched to a new hyperpath, a topic that will be discussed in the
following sections. Second, if the traveler is to be assigned a new
hyperpath, the algorithm determines which elementary path she will
follow out of the multiple branches of a hyperpath. The details of
this assignment will be discussed in the following sections.
After the least cost hyperpath calculation and assignment proce-
dures are completed for every destination zone, the simulation sub-
algorithm is called to move the travelers and vehicles in the network.
The main purpose of the simulation is to obtain the experience of
every traveler and vehicle. Obtaining this experience has two uses:
1. The link and node-pass costs, which include waiting times,
seated loads, and total vehicle loads, are updated for the least cost
hyperpath calculation in the next iteration.
2. The experienced generalized cost of a traveler and its gap
from the best hyperpath’s cost affect the reassignment evaluation in
the next iteration.
Once all vehicles and travelers are simulated in the network, a
convergence check is performed to either terminate or continue to
the next iteration.
Multimodal Least Cost Hyperpath Calculation
This section describes the properties of the hyperpath algorithm without
going into technical details, which are described separately (1).
In an urban setting, transit travelers have multiple transit options.
While some of these options are available at a traveler’s current
stop or station, other attractive options may exist within walking or
biking distance. These nearby options are not properly modeled in
the existing literature. Furthermore, for shorter distances, walk-
ing and biking modes may be a substitute for transit modes. There-
fore, the proposed hyperpath formulation is considered multimodal,
including transit modes such as bus, rail, and commuter rail as well
as walking and biking.
Another property of this algorithm is that it captures the concept
of service patterns (30, 31). A service pattern is a subset of stops
served from the entire stop set of a route. A commonly used pat-
tern is the “short-turn” pattern, which serves the higher-demand
segment of a route and overlaps the full-length pattern. The avail-
ability and frequency of different routes and patterns are changing
over time. Therefore, the hyperpath algorithm used in this study
is time dependent. Furthermore, the link and node costs are based
on the frequency-of-service approach rather than a schedule-based
approach.
Hyperpath formulations, as well as conventional least cost path
formulations, use labels at the nodes to designate the generalized cost
from a given node to the destination node or from the origin node
to the given node according to which direction the least cost path is
constructed. Time-dependent algorithms expand this label structure to
include the time dimension, whereas movement-dependent algorithms
add another dimension that factors in the approach used to get from
the previous node to the current node (32). In a transit framework,
it is important to capture this movement and approach dependency
because travelers’ decisions are dependent not only on which node
they are at but also on the way they have arrived at that node. As an
example, it might be easier for walking travelers who are one block
away from their destination to continue walking rather than waiting
for a bus.
66 Transportation Research Record 2498

Start Terminate

Y Main
Y

FIGURE 1   Main algorithm (iter 5 iteration; dest 5 destination; N 5 no; Y 5 yes).

Another feature of the algorithm is that it counts the number of
transfers along the hyperpath, a feature that enables the progres-
sive penalization of transfers. In this study, the transfer penalty is
increasing quadratically with the number of transfers. Finally, the
probability of standing and the probability of being rejected are also
incorporated into the formulation to deter travelers from congested
conditions. The inconvenience of standing is modeled by increasing
the perceived in-vehicle travel time, while an exponentially growing
capacity cost is used to penalize links with highly loaded vehicles.
Network Representation
As described in the previous section, the algorithm incorporates dif-
ferent modes, as well as the different service patterns. The generalized
cost of these services is changing over time according to availability
and frequency. Furthermore, the cost of using these services is also
dependent on how the traveler is reaching this service (movement
and approach dependency). To address these multi­dimensionalities,
studies in the literature have expanded networks either spatially by
adding imaginary nodes for boarding, alighting, and waiting or tem-
porally by adding nodes for different time points. This study does
not expand the network by adding nodes for either spatial or tem-
poral purposes; the only expansion is the vectorization of each link
to include different modes and service patterns. The cost of each
link–service pair changes over time intervals to capture time depen-
dency. However, it is assumed to be constant within the time interval.
See Figure 2 for the vectorized links and the approach dependency
of choices.
Figure 3 presents a sample network. There are two types of nodes in
the network: zone centroids (origin and destination centroids included)
and transit nodes. Origin centroids are used for demand generation,
whereas destination centroids serve as destination nodes for the least
cost path calculations. Transit nodes represent the real-world transit
network.
There are three types of links in the network: centroid (access and
egress) connectors, transfer links, and transit links. The egress con-
nectors serve as links and always have a transit node as the upstream
node and a destination centroid as the downstream node. Conversely,
an access connector is a source and always has an origin centroid
as the upstream node and a transit node as the downstream node.
Transfer (walk and bike) links connect transit nodes in the vicinity
of each other if they were not already connected by a transit link.
Transit links connect two transit nodes that are on the route of a
transit line. As a result, a transit link has at least one transit pattern in
its vector. If it is served by a bus pattern, walking and biking patterns
are also added to its vector. If it is a rail pattern, walking and biking
are prevented by default.
Verbas, Mahmassani, and Hyland 67

Reassignment Decision

In a gap-based approach, the probability (SProbtr) of switching a

traveler (tr) is

EGC tr − GCLatqr
SProb tr = (1)
EGC tr
(a)
where EGCtr is the experienced total cost of traveler tr and GCLatqr
is the least cost hyperpath between the origin, destination pair (q, r)
at the assignment interval at. For every traveler, a random number
is generated between zero and one, and if this number is less than
SProbtr, the traveler is reassigned. In this approach, a traveler is very
likely to be reassigned if the experienced cost EGCtr has a high dis-
crepancy from the least cost hyperpath cost GCLatqr. Compared with
the conventionally used method of successive averages approach,
this gap-based formulation increases the convergence rate (33).

(b) Constructing an Elementary Path

FIGURE 2   Network representation: (a) multiple modes and Given the set of nodes N in the network, a traveler is generated at an
patterns and (b) approach dependency. origin centroid node q ∈ N at a certain simulation interval st. This
simulation interval falls into a least cost hyperpath calculation time
interval t. At the origin node q at time t, the traveler has a set of
options depicted by R xiq (t). Each element k ∈ R xiq (t) in the set points
Transit Assignment to a next possible node hk and service pattern yk. Each option has the
k( )
xyk
probability LProb iqh t , which represents the probability of going
Following the least cost hyperpath calculation for a destination to node hk via pattern yk at time interval t given that one has arrived
zone, the transit assignment subalgorithm is called as seen in Fig- at node q from node i via pattern x. Let the cumulative probability
ure 1. For a given least cost hyperpath tree, two levels of decisions of each option be
are made:
k
1. Whether a traveler will be reassigned and xyk
CProb iqh t = ∑ LProb iqh
k( )
xym
m( )
t (2)
2. If yes, which elementary path the traveler will be assigned to. m =1

Transit Stop
Zone Centroid
Transit Link
Transfer Link
Centroid Connector

(b)
(a)

FIGURE 3   Sample network: (a) overview and (b) closer look at intersection with
transfer links.
68
A random number is generated between zero and one, which will
certainly fall into one of the intervals CProb iqh k −1 ( )
xyk −1 xyk
t , CProb iqh
k ( )
k ∈ [1, |R iq (t)|], where CProb iqh0 (t ) = 0 by definition. This procedure
x xy0
assigns a traveler to her next node and pattern. Say she is assigned
to node 11, pattern A, and she would arrive there at time t ′ on the
basis of pattern A’s travel time on link (q, 11) at time interval t. Then,
the attractive set of options would be R q,11 A
(t ′) with probabilities
LProb qAy,11,k hk (t ) . The procedure continues until the destination node
r ∈ N is reached, which completes the elementary path construction
of a traveler.
The origin node q, (i, q) is an imaginary loading link, and x is
an imaginary loading pattern. The approach dependency is dem-
k( )
xyk
onstrated in Figure 2b. The probabilities LProb ijh t are calculated
on the basis of service frequencies; details can be found in Verbas
and Mahmassani (1).
Multiagent Particle Simulation
Capturing the disaggregate movement of travelers and vehicles in a
transit network is an important contribution of this study. There are
many benefits of moving each agent individually in the network
as opposed to working solely with traveler and vehicle flows. Dis­
aggregating travelers allows the model to capture (a) heterogeneity in
waiting times, (b) discontinuities in seating and standing, (c) discon-
tinuities in boarding and being rejected, and (d) transfers and missed
connections.
The simulation of travelers and vehicles in the network follows
these steps:
Step 1. Initialize by moving all vehicles and travelers to their
starting time and locations.
Step 2. Simulate.
– for every simulation interval st
• Call MOVE_TRAVELERS(st) and
• Call MOVE_VEHICLES(st)
– next.
Step 3. Terminate.
The time interval st here is allowed to be different from the hyper-
path calculation time interval, the assignment interval, or both. This
approach allows for a more precise simulation by choosing a small
simulation interval size, as the simulation is computationally not very
costly in comparison with hyperpath calculation and assignment.
The simulation subroutine is called after the hyperpath calculation
and passenger assignment are over for all destinations and travel-
ers in a given iteration as can be seen in Figure 1. The subroutines
MOVE_TRAVELERS(st) and MOVE_VEHICLES(st) are called at
every simulation interval st; however, in a given simulation time
interval st, only a subset of passengers and vehicles is scanned and
updated. Those scanned are the vehicles and passengers that are in
the Traveler_Queue(st) and Vehicle_Queue(st), respectively. Once
scanned, an agent is removed from her queue at st and inserted into
a future queue st′ > st. The future interval st′ is calculated according
to the movement speed of the transit vehicle, biking, or walking. In
the case in which a traveler is going to wait, the traveler is inserted
into Traveler_Queue(st′), where st′ = st + 1.
All insertions into queues are done at the end of the queue. The
scanning of a queue always starts from the beginning. The deletion
from the queue can be done from the middle of the queue granted that
the order of the remaining agents in the queue remains unchanged.
Transportation Research Record 2498
Moving Travelers
t ,
The flowchart of MOVE_TRAVELERS(st) is presented in Figure 4.
The algorithm starts by scanning the Traveler_Queue(st). The first
traveler tr in the queue is selected and then deleted from the queue.
If the traveler has arrived at her destination, said traveler is removed
from the network and the algorithm moves to the next traveler. If the
traveler is not at her destination yet, and her upcoming mode is walk-
ing or biking, she is transferred to her next node j from her current
node i. Since the in-motion travel time LTT xij (t) for biking or walking
is known for the corresponding link (i, j), pattern x = walk or x = bike
at time interval t, the next node arrival time st′ = st + LTT xij (t). The
traveler is then inserted into Traveler_Queue(st′).
If the traveler tr is already in a vehicle, the traveler’s movement
is processed in the MOVE_VEHICLES(st) subroutine. If the trav-
eler tr is waiting for a vehicle, the Vehicle_Queue(st) is scanned.
If a vehicle veh is at node i and its pattern is x, the person’s wait-
ing time is updated by taking the difference between the current
time st and the node arrival time of traveler tr. Then the traveler is
inserted into Veh_Traveler_Queue(veh). On the basis of seat avail-
ability, the seating and standing status of the traveler is updated. If
the traveler is rejected to board, she keeps waiting until the next
vehicle arrives. If there is no vehicle at node i at time interval st
belonging to pattern x, the traveler keeps waiting and is inserted
into Traveler_Queue(st + 1).
Moving Vehicles
The flowchart of MOVE_VEHICLES(st) is presented in Figure 5.
The algorithm starts by scanning the Vehicle_Queue(st). The first
vehicle veh in the queue is selected and then deleted from the queue.
If the vehicle has arrived at its destination, said vehicle is removed
from the network and the algorithm moves to the next vehicle. If
the vehicle is not yet at its destination, it is transferred to its next
node according to its schedule. The seated and total load informa-
tion remains the same. Then it is inserted into Vehicle_Queue(st′),
where st′ = st + LTT xij (t).
With the movement of the vehicle, the travelers in the vehicle are
moved as well. This move is achieved by scanning Veh_Traveler_
Queue(veh). Every traveler tr in the vehicle is moved to the next node
of the vehicle, and the travel times and node arrival times of each are
updated. A conditional check is performed on whether the traveler
will stay in the vehicle for the node thereafter. If true, the next traveler
tr is called from Veh_Traveler_Queue(veh).
If the traveler is alighting from the vehicle, she is removed from
Veh_Traveler_Queue(veh). The vehicle veh’s seated and total loads
are updated accordingly. After all travelers in the vehicle are scanned
and moved forward and their alighting and staying decisions are pro-
cessed, the algorithm moves to the beginning of the Veh_Traveler_
Queue(veh) to reassign the seats. As the newly boarded travelers
processed by MOVE_TRAVELERS(st) are inserted at the end of
the Veh_Traveler_Queue(veh), the travelers already in the vehicle
are given seating priority, automatically ordered by how early they
boarded the vehicle.
Experiments
Two validation experiments are demonstrated on the Chicago Tran-
sit Authority (CTA) network in Chicago, Illinois, presented in Fig-
ure 6. The first experiment runs from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m., whereas
Verbas, Mahmassani, and Hyland 69

FIGURE 4   Flowchart for movement of travelers.

70 Transportation Research Record 2498

FIGURE 5   Flowchart for movement of vehicles.

Verbas, Mahmassani, and Hyland 71

• 63,602 links,
• 134 routes,
• 823 patterns,
• Vehicle trips:
5,975 for 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. and
20,736 for a full day, and
• Transit traveler demand:
438,687 for 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. and
1,261,320 for a full day.

The network and the vehicle schedule were prepared by using the
General Transit Feed Specification data (34); the passenger demand
data were obtained from a forecasting project (35, 36). The experi-
ment was performed to assign and simulate travelers and vehicles
with the use of the following weights and parameters:

• Relative weight of waiting (xw) with respect to seated in-vehi-

cle travel time (IVTT), XW = 2;
• Relative weight of walking (ww) with respect to seated IVTT,
WW = 1;
• Walking speed is set to 4.6 ft/s;
• Link travel times of transit vehicles are obtained from the
General Transit Feed Specification data and are assumed not to be
affected by traffic or vehicle load;
• Relative weight of standing (ws) with respect to seated IVTT,
WS = 2;
• Biking is disabled;
• Base transfer penalty PX = 5 min;
• Simulation interval = 1 s;
• Assignment interval = 30 min; and
• Least cost path calculation interval = 30 min.

Figure 7 presents the progression of the average gap per traveler

over iterations for both scenarios. The 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. experiment
converges to an average gap of 3 min, while the full-day experiment
converges to 4 min.
FIGURE 6   CTA network. Similarly, the 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. experiment converges to an average
cost of 61 min, while the full-day experiment converges to 62 min, as
seen in Figure 8. The average cost is a measure of system optimum,
the second experiment runs for the entire day. The network has the while the average gap is a measure of user equilibrium.
following properties: Introducing vehicle capacity constraints results in the rejection of
some travelers trying to board a vehicle during the simulation and
• 1,072 zones, induces penalties in the hyperpath calculation. A rejected traveler
• 13,754 nodes: would board the next vehicle of the same pattern or route in the best
11,610 stops and stations and case and would be unable to complete the trip in the worst case, result-
2,144 centroids, ing in very high experienced costs. As an implementation strategy, a
Gap per traveler (min)

7 a.m.–12 p.m.
Full Day

Iteration

FIGURE 7   Change in average gap over iterations.

72
Cost per traveler (min)
Iteration
FIGURE 8   Change in average cost over iterations.
penalty of 3 h is added to the experienced cost of a traveler who was
not able to finish her trip. This mostly ensures the reassignment of
the traveler in the next iteration as the gap between the least cost and
the experienced cost becomes very high.
Figure 9 presents the number of rejection occurrences over the
number of travelers as percentages. The 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. and the
full-day scenarios converge to 1.0% and 0.8%, respectively. Simi-
larly, the 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. scenario converges to 0.01% incomplete
travels, whereas the full-day scenario converges to 0.23%, as seen
in Figure 10. These numbers show that most of the rejected travelers
find another vehicle to board and are able to reach their destinations.
With a 64-bit personal computer with a central processing unit
speed of 2.30 GHz, one iteration requires
• 50-GB memory and 1.5 h for the 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. scenario and
• 120-GB memory and 12 h for the full-day scenario.
The results presented in this section demonstrate that the
simulation-assignment framework introduced in this paper is able
to equilibrate the assignment of travelers in a large-scale transit
network such as the CTA network.
Conclusion
This paper introduces an integrated tool to find least cost hyperpaths,
assign travelers, and simulate them along with vehicles in a transit
network. Modeling the multimodal, multipattern time- and approach-
Travelers (%)
Iteration
FIGURE 9   Change in percentage of rejections over iterations.
Transportation Research Record 2498
7 a.m.–12 p.m.
Full Day
dependent features of a transit network enables finding strategies
that reflect the real-world behavior of travelers. A gap-based solution
approach for assignment, which evaluates the individual experience
of every traveler in the network, provides a good convergence rate for
large-scale applications. These individual experiences are obtained
via the multiagent particle simulation platform, which is able to cap-
ture the heterogeneities and the discontinuities in travel, such as seat-
ing and standing, boarding and being rejected, and transferring and
missing a connection. The platform is tested on the CTA network.
Convergence is reached for a 5-h and for an entire-day scenario on a
network of 14,000 nodes and 64,000 links in which 1.25 million trav-
elers are assigned and simulated along with 21,000 transit vehicles.
This assignment-simulation tool has been integrated with a road net-
work traffic particle simulator (37, 38) and an activity-based travel
demand model (39, 40) for use for strategic planning decisions by
the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Application in con-
junction with optimal frequency allocation and service design is also
illustrated in Verbas and Mahmassani (41).
Acknowledgments
This paper is based on research funded by the Chicago Metropolitan
Agency for Planning (CMAP) as part of the project Network Micro-
simulation Extension to Activity-Based Travel Model conducted by
the Northwestern University Transportation Center (NUTC), under a
subcontract to Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. (PB). The authors are grate-
7 a.m.–12 p.m.
Full Day
Verbas, Mahmassani, and Hyland
Travelers (%)
Iteration
FIGURE 10   Change in percentage of incomplete travels over iterations.
ful to Peter Vovsha of PB and Kermit Wies of CMAP for helpful
comments on the method described in this paper. The authors also
acknowledge the contributions of other NUTC researchers, especially
Ali Zockaie, Hooram Halat, Andreas Frei, and Xiang Alex Xu.
References
. 20. Han, F. H., and N. H. M. Wilson. The Allocation of Buses in Heavily
1. Verbas, I. Ö., and H. S. Mahmassani. Least Cost Hyperpaths in Multi-
modal Transit Networks: A Time and Approach-Dependent Formulation.
Presented at 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2015.
2. Beckmann, M. J., C. B. McGuire, and C. B. Winston. Studies in the Eco-
nomics of Transportation. Yale University Press, Conn., 1956.
3. Wardrop, J. G. Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research.
Proc., Institute of Civil Engineering Part 2, 1952, pp. 352–378.
4. Frank, M., and P. Wolfe. An Algorithm for Quadratic Programming.
Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 1-2, 1956, pp. 95–110.
5. Sheffi, Y. Urban Traffic Networks: Equilibrium Analysis with Mathemati-
cal Programming Methods. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1985.
6. Merchant, D. K., and G. L. Nemhauser. A Model and an Algorithm for the
Dynamic Traffic Assignment Problems. Transportation Science, Vol. 12,
No. 3, 1978, pp. 183–199.
7. Mahmassani, H. S., and R. Herman. Dynamic User Equilibrium Depar-
ture Time and Route Choice on Idealized Traffic Arterials. Transportation
Science, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1984, pp. 362–384.
8. Dial, R. B. Transit Pathfinder Algorithm. In Highway Research Record 205,
HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1967, pp. 67–85.
9. Le Clercq, F. A Public Transport Assignment Method. Traffic Engineer-
ing and Control, Vol. 14, 1972, pp. 91–96.
10. Spiess, H., and M. Florian. Optimal Strategies: A New Assignment Model
for Transit Networks. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 23B, No. 2,
1989, pp. 83–102.
11. Nguyen, S., and S. Pallottino. Equilibrium Traffic Assignment for Large-
Scale Transit Networks. European Journal of Operational Research,
Vol. 37, No. 2, 1988, pp. 176–186.
12. Chriqui, C., and P. Robillard. Common Bus Lines. Transportation Science,
Vol. 9, No. 2, 1975, pp. 115–121.
13. De Cea, J., and E. Fernandez. Transit Assignment for Congested Pub-
lic Transport Systems: An Equilibrium Model. Transportation Science,
Vol. 27, No. 2, 1993, pp. 133–147.
14. Wu, J. H., M. Florian, and P. Marcotte. Transit Equilibrium Assignment:
A Model and Solution Algorithms. Transportation Science, Vol. 28, No. 3,
1994, pp. 193–203.
15. Cepeda, M., R. Cominetti, and M. Florian. A Frequency-Based Assign-
ment Model for Congested Transit Networks with Strict Capacity Con-
straints: Characterization and Computation of Equilibria. Transportation
Research Part B, Vol. 40B, No. 6, 2006, pp. 437–459.
16. Hamdouch, Y., and S. Lawphongpanich. Schedule-Based Transit Assign-
ment Model with Travel Strategies and Capacity Constraints. Transporta-
tion Research Part B, Vol. 42B, No. 7-8, 2008, pp. 663–684.
73
7 a.m.–12 p.m.
Full Day
17. Hamdouch, Y., H. W. Ho, A. Sumalee, and G. Wang. Schedule-Based
Transit Assignment Model with Vehicle Capacity and Seat Availability.
Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 45B, No. 10, 2011, pp. 1805–1830.
18. Schmocker, J. D., A. Fonzone, H. Shimamoto, F. Kurauchi, and M. G. H.
Bell. Frequency-Based Transit Assignment Considering Seat Capacities.
Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 45B, No. 2, 2011, pp. 392–408.
19. Cominetti, R., and J. Correa. Common-Lines and Passenger Assignment
in Congested Transit Networks. Transportation Science, Vol. 35, No. 3,
2001, pp. 250–267.
Utilized Networks with Overlapping Routes. Transportation Research
Part B, Vol. 16B, No. 3, 1982, pp. 221–232.
21. Baaj, M. H., and H. S. Mahmassani. TRUST: A Lisp Program for the
Analysis of Transit Route Configurations. In Transportation Research
Record 1283, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990,
pp. 125–135.
22. Toledo, T., O. Cats, W. Burghout, and H. N. Koutsopoulos. Mesoscopic
Simulation for Transit Operations. Transportation Research Part C,
Vol. 18C, No. 6, 2010, pp. 896–908.
23. Wahba, M., and A. Shalaby. Multiagent Learning-Based Approach to
Transit Assignment Problem: A Prototype. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1926, Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
2005, pp. 96–105.
24. Bekhor, S., C. Dobler, and K. W. Axhausen. Integration of Activity-
Based and Agent-Based Models: Case of Tel Aviv, Israel. In Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2255, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 38–47.
25. Abdelghany, K. F., and H. S. Mahmassani. Dynamic Trip Assignment-
Simulation Model for Intermodal Transportation Networks. In Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1771, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
2001, pp. 52–60.
26. Noh, H., M. Hickman, and A. Khani. Hyperpaths in Network Based
on Transit Schedules. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 2284, Transportation Research
Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 29–39.
27. Noh, H. Capacitated Schedule-Based Transit Assignment Using a
Capacity Penalty Cost. PhD dissertation. University of Arizona, 2013.
28. Mahmassani, H. S., K. Zhang, J. Dong, C.-C. Lu, V. C. Arcot, and
E. Miller-Hooks. Dynamic Network Simulation-Assignment Platform
for Multiproduct Intermodal Freight Transportation Analysis. In Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2032, Transportation Research Board of the National Acad-
emies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 9–16.
29. Zhang, K., R. Nair, H. S. Mahmassani, E. Miller-Hooks, V. C. Arcot,
A. Kuo, J. Dong, and C.-C. Lu. Application and Validation of Dynamic
Freight Simulation–Assignment Model to Large-Scale Intermodal Rail
Network: Pan-European Case. In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2066, Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008,
pp. 9–20.
74
30. Furth, P. G., and F. B. Day. Transit Routing and Scheduling Strategies
for Heavy-Demand Corridors. In Transportation Research Record 1011,
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1985, pp. 23–26.
31. Furth, P. G. Zonal Route Design for Transit Corridors. Transportation
Science, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1986, pp. 1–12.
32. Ziliaskopoulos, A. K., and W. Wardell. An Intermodal Optimum Path
Algorithm for Multimodal Networks with Dynamic Arc Travel Times and
Switching Delays. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 125,
No. 3, 2000, pp. 486–502.
33. Lu, C.-C., H. S. Mahmassani, and X. Zhou. Equivalent Gap Function-
Based Reformulation and Solution Algorithm for the Dynamic User
Equilibrium Problem. Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 43B, No. 3,
2009, pp. 345–364.
34. Google Developers. General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS). https://
developers.google.com/transit/gtfs/reference. Accessed March 1, 2014.
35. Mahmassani, H. S., L. Jiang, A. Frei, T. Hou, A. Zockaie, and M. Saberi.
Modeling and Forecasting of Toll Revenues. Final report. FHWA, Wash-
ington, D.C., 2013.
36. Zockaie, A., M. Saberi, H. S. Mahmassani, L. Jiang, A. Frei, and T. Hou.
Towards Integrating an Activity-Based Model with Dynamic Traffic
Assignment Considering Heterogeneous User Preferences and Reli-
ability Valuation: Application to Toll Revenue Forecasting in Chicago.
Presented at 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Washington, D.C., 2015.
37. Mahmassani, H. S., T. Y. Hu, S. Peeta, and A. Ziliaskopoulos. Devel-
opment and Testing of Dynamic Traffic Assignment and Simulation
Transportation Research Record 2498
Procedures for ATIS. ATMS Applications. Technical Report DTFH61-
90-R-0074-FG. Center for Transportation Research, University of
Texas at Austin, 1994.
38. Mahmassani, H. S. Dynamic Network Traffic Assignment and Simu-
lation Methodology for Advanced System Management Applications.
Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 1, No. 3-4, 2001, pp. 267–292.
39. Vovsha, P., R. Donnelly, M. Bradley, J. Bowman, H. Mahmassani,
T. Adler, K. Small, and F. Koppelman. Improving Our Understanding
of How Highway Congestion and Price Affect Travel Demand. Final
report. SHRP 2 Capacity Project C04. Transportation Research Board
of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012.
40. Zhang, K., H. S. Mahmassani, and P. Vovsha. Integrated Nested Logit
Mode Choice and Dynamic Network Micro-Assignment Model Plat-
form to Support Congestion and Pricing Studies: The New York Metro­
politan Case. Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research. Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.
41. Verbas, I. Ö., and H. S. Mahmassani. Integrated Frequency Allocation
and User Assignment in Multi-Modal Transit Networks: Methodology
and Application to Large-Scale Urban Systems. Presented at 94th Annual
Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015.
The authors are responsible for the content of this paper.
The Standing Committee on Transportation Network Modeling peer-reviewed
this paper.