Designing a Flexible Feeder Transit System Serving

Irregularly Shaped and Gated Communities: Determining

Service Area and Feeder Route Planning
Shuliang Pan 1; Jie Yu, Ph.D. 2; Xianfeng Yang 3; Yue Liu, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 4; and Nan Zou, Ph.D. 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Maryland on 06/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper presents a mathematical model to design the appropriate service area and routing plans for a flexible feeder transit
system serving irregularly shaped and gated communities. Given the fleet size and travel times between demand collection nodes, a mixed
integer linear programming (MILP) model is developed to optimize the service area and transit route planning concurrently. The proposed
model features a two-level structure with an upper level to maximize the number of served passengers by the feeder transit system and a lower
level to minimize the operational cost for transit operators. This paper further presents a heuristic approach to yield acceptable solutions to the
model in a reasonable amount of time. Case study results have demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed model as well as the heuristic
solution approach. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000224. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Public transit; Flexible feeder transit service; Irregularly shaped and gated communities; Service area; Gravity-based
method.

Introduction
Over the past several decades, contending with traffic congestion
and air pollution has emerged as one of the imperative issues during
the process of urbanization in developing countries such as China.
Development of a transit-oriented urban transport system has been
realized by an increasing number of city administrations to be one
of the most effective strategies for mitigating congestion and
pollution problems. For example, until the end of 2012, urban rail
transit systems have been operated in 16 cities in the China main-
land, with a total of 64 routes and 1,291 stations and a total length
of 1,980 km (China Communications and Transportation Associ-
ation of Rail Traffic 2012). At the same time, most modern Chinese
cities have been experiencing the dramatic growth of urban sprawl.
For example, from 2002 to 2010, the population density in China
mainland urban areas dropped 11.2% despite an average overall
population growth of 5.4% (National Bureau of Statistics of China
2001, 2011).
To contend with widely spread passenger demands caused by
diversification of population, development of intermodal transit
systems is inevitable in China. Rail transit serves as the highly
1
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Control Science and Engineering, Public
Transit Planning, Shandong Univ., 17923 Jingshi Rd., Jinan, Shandong
250061, China. E-mail: panshuliang@mail.sdu.edu.cn
2 many-to-one type of demand. Existing studies on FBNDP fall
Associate Professor, School of Control Science and Engineering,
Public Transit Planning, Shandong Univ., 17923 Jingshi Rd., Jinan, Shan-
dong 250061, China (corresponding author). E-mail: jie.yu@sdu.edu.cn
3
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ.
of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742. E-mail: xyang125@umd.edu
4
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin at
Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201. E-mail: liu28@uwm.edu
5
Professor, School of Control Science and Engineering, Shandong
Univ., 17923 Jingshi Rd., Jinan, Shandong 250061, China. E-mail:
nanzou@sdu.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 5, 2014; approved on
April 8, 2014; published online on June 23, 2014. Discussion period open
until November 23, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Urban Planning and
Development, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9488/04014028(9)/$25.00.
efficient “trunk line” with some properly located transfer stations,
while feeder transit serves as a convenient “branch line” to collect
passenger flows back and forth between demand collection points
and transfer stations within a predefined service area. In real-world
applications, planners and engineers usually need to take into ac-
count a number of critical issues associated with the design of such
systems, e.g., how to choose a proper feeder transit service area for
a specific transfer station, how to design an efficient feeder bus
route network, and how to integrate and coordinate the operational
schedules between rail transit and feeder buses to ensure that the
“trunk and branch” network topology successfully bundles transit
flows and efficiently utilizes the limited transportation resources.
As indicated by Kuan et al. (2006), a better-integrated intermodal
system would lead to a reduction of operating costs and an increase
in revenues through maintaining shorter routes and eliminating
duplicated routes by the rails and the buses, and it would lead
to a higher service quality and satisfaction level for passengers
resulting from better coverage and shorter travel times with
minimal delay.
Realizing the above critical issues, this paper focuses on the
feeder bus network design problems (FBNDP). In the literature,
pioneering studies on this subject dated back to the 1980s, since
Wirasinghe (1980) first formulated an approximate analytical
model for a fixed-route feeder bus system that serves a peak-period
mainly into two categories: fixed-route and flex-route services, de-
pending on whether the feeder transit service responds to passenger
demand in a time-varying manner or not. Several features are
identified in a typical fixed-route service (Alshalalfah 2009): pre-
determined schedule, large loading capacity of vehicles, and fixed
routing plan. Therefore, the fixed-route service requires more
concentrated demand to consolidate passenger flows onto a single
vehicle. In recent years, this subject has attracted the great attention
of researchers, and most studies focus on the feeder bus stop
location, route planning, and frequency scheduling (Kuah and Perl
1988; Chien and Schonfeld 1998; Chien and Yang 2000; Aldaihani
et al. 2004; Kuah and Perl 1989; Jerby and Ceder 2006;
Mohaymany and Gholani 2010; Ciaffi et al. 2012). However,

© ASCE 04014028-1 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev.

 or using the website at least one or two hours in advance. For the
Rail transit best operational results, people can also make their reservations one
T
or two days in advance after they confirm their trip. The flex-route
service has been recognized as one of the potential solutions to
medium/low demand conditions toward a sustainable mobility in
the newly developed urban/suburban areas (e.g., industrial parks,
Transfer new suburban residential communities). During peak hours, the
T fixed-route service can transport a large number of passengers
station
efficiently by using buses with relatively high capacities. However,
in the nonpeak hours, the headway of the fixed-route service will be
stretched above 10 min, even up to 30 min, resulting in inconven-
ience to travelers with infrequent, flexible, and random trip pur-
Feeder transit poses (e.g., shopping, visiting friends).
Transfer
T
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Maryland on 06/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

station Fixed-route Flex-route 1 Flex-route 2
Fig. 1. Illustration of a trunk-and-branch intermodal transit system
(fixed-route versus flex-route)
because of the lack of accessibility and flexibility, the fixed-route
service has been found to be inconvenient for those passengers with
individual special needs. In contrast, a more flex-route service
(Fig. 1), also known as a demand-responsive connector (DRC)
service, with vehicles operating in demand-responsive mode within
a zone and one or more scheduled transfer points connected with a
fixed-route network, provides an almost personalized transit mode
by combining the cost efficiency of regular fixed-route service with
the flexibility of demand-responsive service. Passengers who need
a flexible-route service are required to reserve by calling the agency
As reported by the transit cooperative research program (TCRP)
(Koffman 2004), the flex-route feeder transit system, as one of the
six main types of flexible transit service, has been operated in quite
a few North American cities, especially within low-density residen-
tial areas. Analytical models with the objective of minimizing the
cost of operators and/or customers were developed to obtain the
switching conditions (i.e., the critical demand density, the locations
of feeder bus stops) between the two competing operating policies
(fixed-route and flex-route services). For example, the critical
passenger demand density is estimated to range from 23 to
42 customers=h=mi2 for an area of 2 × 0.5 mi2 under the one ser-
vice vehicle case, and flexible service outperforms fixed-route
service when the passenger demand density drops below the critical
value (Quadrifoglio and Li 2009; Li and Quadrifoglio 2010).
Alshalalfah and Shalaby (2010) investigated the feasibility and
benefits of replacing a fixed-route feeder transit service in a sub-
urban area with a flex-route service. Li and Quadrifoglio (2009)

Demand/pickup
House Road Vehicle route
point
(a)

Building Road Demand point Pickup Point

Vehicle route Pedestrain route Community
(b)

Fig. 2. Comparison between open and gated communities (map data: Google, DigitalGlobe)

© ASCE 04014028-2 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev.

 studied how to divide the whole rectangular service area (L × W)
into zones for easier operational management to reduce operating
Receiving demand
costs and provide a better level of service to customers. requests
Despite the promising progress in designing and operating a
flex-route feeder transit service, most of the previous studies have
developed analytical models that require a grid-shaped street geom-
etry and uniform distribution of demand, and feeder buses go to and
from the locations of pick-up and drop-off in a door-to-station/
Designating pick-up
station-to-door manner within the service area [Fig. 2(a)]. However,
such assumptions may be easily violated in the gated communities points
that prevent feeder buses from picking up or dropping off custom-
ers in front of the buildings [Fig. 2(b)]. Instead, passengers will
gather at the designated pick-up/drop-off points, which may further
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Maryland on 06/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

violate the assumption of uniform demand distribution. Realizing

this critical issue, this study develops a new model to design the
appropriate service area and routing plans for a flexible feeder
transit system without the assumption of prespecifying the grid-
shaped street geometry and uniform demand distribution, such that Determining service
it can be applied to most Chinese cities. area and routing plan
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: the next
section presents the problem statement along with the model
formulation. A heuristic approach is proposed and illustrated in
“Solution Algorithm” section. “Case Study” section gives an illus-
trative example to demonstrate the validity of the optimization
model and effectiveness of the heuristic. Sensitivity analyses with
respect to different fleet sizes are also provided. Concluding
Scheduling
remarks are made in the last section.
and dispatching
Methodology

Problem Statement Fig. 3. Operation process of a flex-route feeder transit system

In this paper, a flex-route transit system is considered that provides
a demand-responsive service to passengers. Each service trip be-
gins or ends at the transfer station and picks up and drops off pas-
Notations
sengers at designated demand collection points distributed among
different communities. Operation of such a system may include the To facilitate model presentation, key parameter definitions and
following key components (Fig. 3): (1) receiving demand requests notations used hereafter are summarized in the notation list.
from the booking service; (2) designating pick-up points for each
gated community by concentrating demand requests; (3) generating Model Formulation
the service area and routing plan before the beginning of each trip;
and (4) scheduling and dispatching the feeder buses in coordination Given the above assumptions and definitions, the problem of de-
with the timetable of urban rail transit. The problem to be addressed ciding the service area for a feeder transit system can be formulated
in the proposed research is to generate an appropriate service area with the following discrete optimization models.
covering a set of demand collection points and simultaneously plan The upper-level objective is
the routes for all service trips before they start. All of the passengers XXX
are assumed to reserve the service one to two hours in advance f 1 ¼ max Cijk ð1Þ
i j k
before the time they depart. Once the requests are approved by
the system, a text message confirmation will be sent to the passen- The lower-level objective is
ger before the service starts. XXX XXX
f2 ¼ min Cm Sv tij Y ijk =60 þ Ch tij Y ijk =60
Assumptions i j k i j k

The following assumptions are made to ensure that the proposed ð2Þ
formulations are tractable and realistically reflect the real-world subject to
constraints: XX
1. The feeder bus ends each of its trips at the transfer station; Y ijk ≤ N ∀ j ∈ H ∪ H0 ð3Þ
2. Pick-up requests sent by the passengers are collected and i k
responded to before the beginning of each trip;
3. Location and demand concentration at each pick-up point XX
Y ijk ≥ 1 ∀ j ∈ H0 ð4Þ
is given; i k
4. Travel times between pick-up points and the transfer station XX
are given; and Y ijk ≤ N ∀ j ∈ H0 ð5Þ
5. Fleet size is known. i k

© ASCE 04014028-3 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev.

 X X XX
Y ijk − Y pik ≥ 0 ∀ i ∈ H; k∈K ð6Þ Y jik ≤ 0 ∀ k ∈ K ð14Þ
j∈H∪H 0 p∈H i∈H j∈H 0

U ik − U jk þ jHj × Y ijk ≤ jHj − 1i; j ∈ H ∪ H0 ; k∈K Cijk − Y ijk ≥ 0 ∀ i ∈ H; ∀ j ∈ H ∪ H0 ; ∀k∈K ð15Þ

ð7Þ
Eq. (1) maximizes the number of passengers served by the
XX feeder transit system, and Eq. (2) is the auxiliary objective to min-
Cijk ≤ Qk ∀k∈K ð8Þ imize the operator’s cost if the maximum service coverage is ob-
i j tained in Eq. (1). The operator’s cost includes the operating cost
and labor cost. Constraint Eq. (3) states that the number of vehicles
XX serving each demand point should be no more than fleet size. The
Cijk ≤ Di ∀i∈H ð9Þ number of vehicles dispatched must be at least one and at most the
j k
fleet size, given by constraint Eqs. (4) and (5). Constraint Eq. (6)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Maryland on 06/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sets each demand point (except transfer station) being served to

Cijk ≤ Qk Y ijk ∀ i ∈ H; ∀ j ∈ H ∪ H0 ; ∀k∈K ð10Þ have exactly the same incoming and outgoing arcs. Constraint
Eq. (7) is used for sub-tour elimination in the vehicle routing prob-
X X lem. Constraint Eq. (8) sets the limit that the number of passengers
Y ijk tij ≤ T max ∀k∈K ð11Þ in each vehicle transferred from demand points to the transfer
i∈H j∈H∪H 0
station must be less than the vehicle capacity during each route.
Constraint Eq. (9) guarantees that the number of passengers
X X
Y ijk tij Sv ≥ Lmin ∀k∈K ð12Þ assigned to vehicles must be less than the reserved demand.
i∈H j∈H∪H 0 Constraint Eq. (10) assigns passengers to vehicles only if the ve-
hicle serves that link or demand points. The maximum allowed
XX travel time is used by constraint Eq. (11) to prevent excessive wait-
Y ijk ≥ 1 ∀k∈K ð13Þ ing and traveling time for passengers. The minimum length of each
i∈H j∈H 0 vehicle route is given by constraint Eq. (12) Constraint Eqs. (13)

2 7
6
1
5
11
4
10
3

9
20 15

8
H
21
14

17
13 16

12
19
H
Transit station
18
Potential
service area
Study area

Fig. 4. Case study area (map data: Google, DigitalGlobe)

© ASCE 04014028-4 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev.

 Table 1. Demands of Each Point polynomial-time hard (NP-hard). A heuristic method thus has to
Nodes Number of passengers be sought to solve the proposed model. Inspired by the gravity model
used to forecast trip distribution, the authors have developed a
1 4
new gravity-based method to convert the original integrated vehicle
2 7
3 7
routing and service area decision problem into an iterative gravity
4 6 maximization problem for service area choice chain construction.
5 5 The reversed order of the choice chain yields the routes of vehicles.
6 8 The gravity “distance” between a pair of nodes is given in
7 6 Eq. (17), where Di is the demand of node i, and tij is the travel
8 5 time between nodes i and j. Note that when calculating the gravity
9 7 between a node and the transfer station, the demand at the transfer
10 8 station can be set as a large real number
11 8
12 5 Di Dj
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Maryland on 06/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

13 9 Gij ¼ ∀i≠j ð17Þ

ðtij Þ2
14 6
15 6 For the convenience of presentation of the algorithm, several
16 8 important definitions with respect to the attributes of demand
17 5 collection nodes are provided as follows:
18 7 • Open: a node that is available for connection at the current
19 7 service area selection step; otherwise the node is closed;
20 6
• Unvisited: a node that has not been chosen to be served by any
vehicles at the current step;
and (14) ensure that each route is connected to the transfer station. • Visited: a node that has been chosen to be served by a vehicle
Constraint Eq. (15) indicates that if a demand point is served at least but not all of its demand has been served; and
one passenger should be assigned to a vehicle. • Cleared: a node with all of its demand served.
The total demand served by the DRC system can be obtained in Given the fleet size N and vehicle capacity, the solution
the upper level and then will be used as a constraint in the lower- procedure is described as follows:
level model to obtain the optimal solution with minimal operator • Step 0 (Initialization): Set the status of all nodes as “unvisited”
cost, which is given in Eq. (16). The Obju is the objective value of and “closed,” calculate the gravity between each node pair, and
the upper-level objective set the number of constructed choice chains N t as zero.
• Step 1: Sort all of the nodes into a descending list Ω according to
XXX
Cijk ¼ Obju ð16Þ the gravity between nodes and the transfer station.
i j k • Step 2: If N t ≥ N, go to Step 3; otherwise, start from the first
node in the list Ω.
• Step 2.1: If the selected node is “cleared,” delete it from list Ω
Solution Algorithm
and go back to Step 2; otherwise go to Step 2.2.
The proposed optimization model is an extension to the vehicle • Step 2.2: If the selected node is “unvisited,” go to Step 2.2.1;
routing problem that has been proved to be non-deterministic otherwise go to Step 2.3.

Table 2. Travel Time Matrix

Destination node
Origin node 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 H
1 — 3 3 2 4 6 8 6 5 6 8 11 9 8 9 10 12 14 14 7 8
2 3 — 6 4 2 3 5 8 6 5 6 13 10 8 8 10 11 14 13 6 8
3 3 6 — 3 6 8 10 4 4 7 9 9 7 6 9 10 12 12 13 6 7
4 2 4 3 — 3 5 7 4 3 4 7 9 7 5 7 8 10 12 12 5 6
5 4 2 6 3 — 3 5 6 4 3 4 11 8 6 5 8 9 12 12 4 6
6 6 3 8 5 3 — 2 8 6 3 3 13 10 8 6 9 9 14 13 6 8
7 8 5 10 7 5 2 — 10 8 5 3 14 12 10 6 10 10 14 13 7 9
8 6 8 4 4 6 8 10 — 3 6 9 6 3 3 7 6 9 9 11 4 4
9 5 6 4 3 4 6 8 3 — 4 6 7 5 3 5 6 8 9 11 3 3
10 6 5 7 4 3 3 5 6 4 — 3 10 7 5 3 6 7 11 12 3 5
11 8 6 9 7 4 3 3 9 6 3 — 12 9 7 4 8 7 12 13 5 7
12 11 13 9 9 11 13 14 6 7 10 12 — 3 5 9 6 8 5 7 8 6
13 9 10 7 7 8 10 12 3 5 7 9 3 — 3 7 4 7 6 7 5 4
14 8 8 6 5 6 8 10 3 3 5 7 5 3 — 5 4 6 7 7 3 2
15 9 8 9 7 5 6 6 7 5 3 4 9 7 5 — 4 4 9 7 3 4
16 10 10 10 8 8 9 10 6 6 6 8 6 4 4 4 — 3 5 4 5 3
17 12 11 12 10 9 9 10 9 8 7 7 8 7 6 4 3 — 6 4 6 5
18 14 14 12 12 12 14 14 9 9 11 12 5 6 7 9 5 6 — 3 9 7
19 14 13 13 12 12 13 13 11 11 12 13 7 7 7 7 4 4 3 — 8 7
20 7 6 6 5 4 6 7 4 3 3 5 8 5 3 3 5 6 9 8 — 2
H 8 8 7 6 6 8 9 4 3 5 7 6 4 2 4 3 5 7 7 2 —
Note: Times in minutes.

© ASCE 04014028-5 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev.

 • Step 2.2.2: If the remaining capacity of the current vehicle is
zero or the route exceeds the maximum travel time, the current
tour is complete and let N t ¼ N t þ 1 and go back to Step 2;
2 7
otherwise go to Step 2.2.3.
6 • Step 2.2.3: Select a non-“cleared” node that has the largest
1
5 gravity with the “open” nodes; include it in the choice
4
11
chain and connect it to its most adjacent “open” node; set it
3
10 as “open” and close its connected “open” node; if all of the pas-
sengers have been served, set it as “cleared”; otherwise set it as
9 20 15 “visited.”
8 • Step 2.2.4: Calculate the remaining vehicle capacity; if it is zero
H
14 or the route exceeds the maximum travel time, let N t ¼ N t þ 1
13 16
17 and go back to Step 2; otherwise go back to Step 2.2.3.
• Step 2.3: Check the position of selected node in its choice chain.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Maryland on 06/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

• Step 2.3.1: If it is at the end of the route, set it and its prior node
12
19 as “open”; go to Step 2.2.1 to reconstruct the choice chain;
Demand Points otherwise go to Step 2.3.2.
18
H Transfer Hub • Step 2.3.2: Set the selected node and the end node as “open”; go
Vehicle Routes to Step 2.2.1 to reconstruct the choice chain.
Service Area • Step 3: End.
Fig. 5. Case study results
Case Study
To validate the proposed optimization model and evaluate the
Table 3. Routing Plans and Number of Passengers Served effectiveness of the solution heuristic, the network of the Hi-tech
District in Jinan of China (the area within the red polygon in Fig. 4)
Route Travel
Vehicles Routes length (mi) time (min) Customer demand was chosen. The area within the yellow circle is the potential
service area of the feeder transit service.
1 6-2-5-H 2.75 11 8 þ 7 þ 5 ¼ 20 According to the road network and the characteristics of the
2 3-4-9-H 2.25 9 7 þ 6 þ 7 ¼ 20
communities, the study area is divided to consist of one transit
3 8-13-14-H 2 8 5 þ 9 þ 6 ¼ 20
4 18-19-16-H 2.5 10 5 þ 7 þ 8 ¼ 20
station and 20 gated communities around the transfer station.
5 11-10-20-H 2 8 8 þ 8 þ 4 ¼ 20 The potential served communities are numbered from 1 to 20,
and the transfer station is labeled as H. Key parameters used in
the case study are given as follows:
• Step 2.2.1: Change the node’s status to “open”; include the node • Average speed of feeder buses: 15 km/h;
into the choice chain and connect it directly to the transfer sta- • Vehicle capacity: 20 persons;
tion; calculate the remaining capacity of the vehicle; if all of the • Fleet size: 5 vehicles;
passengers have been served, set the node as “cleared”; other- • Maximum allowed travel time for each route: 15 min;
wise set it as “visited.” • Minimum route length: 2 km;

Table 4. Gravity Matrix for the Case Study

Destination node
Origin node 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 H
1 0.00 3.11 3.11 6.00 1.25 0.89 0.38 0.56 1.12 0.89 0.50 0.17 0.44 0.38 0.30 0.32 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.49 0.06
2 3.11 0.00 1.36 2.63 8.75 6.22 1.68 0.55 1.36 2.24 1.56 0.21 0.63 0.66 0.66 0.56 0.29 0.25 0.29 1.17 0.11
3 3.11 1.36 0.00 4.67 0.97 0.88 0.42 2.19 3.06 1.14 0.69 0.43 1.29 1.17 0.52 0.56 0.24 0.34 0.29 1.17 0.14
4 6.00 2.63 4.67 0.00 3.33 1.92 0.73 1.88 4.67 3.00 0.98 0.37 1.10 1.44 0.73 0.75 0.30 0.29 0.29 1.44 0.17
5 1.25 8.75 0.97 3.33 0.00 4.44 1.20 0.69 2.19 4.44 2.50 0.21 0.70 0.83 1.20 0.63 0.31 0.24 0.24 1.88 0.14
6 0.89 6.22 0.88 1.92 4.44 0.01 12.00 0.63 1.56 7.11 7.11 0.24 0.72 0.75 1.33 0.79 0.49 0.29 0.33 1.33 0.13
7 0.38 1.68 0.42 0.73 1.20 12.00 0.00 0.30 0.66 1.92 5.33 0.15 0.38 0.36 1.00 0.48 0.30 0.21 0.25 0.73 0.07
8 0.56 0.55 2.19 1.88 0.69 0.63 0.30 0.00 3.89 1.11 0.49 0.69 5.00 3.33 0.61 1.11 0.31 0.43 0.29 1.88 0.31
9 1.12 1.36 3.06 4.67 2.19 1.56 0.66 4.44 0.00 3.50 1.56 0.82 2.52 4.67 1.68 1.56 0.55 0.60 0.40 4.67 0.78
10 0.89 2.24 1.14 3.00 4.44 7.11 1.92 1.11 3.50 0.01 7.11 0.40 1.47 1.92 5.33 1.78 0.82 0.46 0.39 5.33 0.32
11 0.50 1.56 0.69 0.98 2.50 7.11 5.33 0.49 1.56 7.11 0.01 0.28 0.89 0.98 3.00 1.00 0.82 0.39 0.33 1.92 0.16
12 0.17 0.21 0.43 0.37 0.21 0.24 0.15 0.69 0.71 0.40 0.28 0.00 5.00 1.20 0.37 1.11 0.39 1.40 0.71 0.47 0.14
13 0.44 0.63 1.29 1.10 0.70 0.72 0.38 5.00 2.52 1.47 0.89 5.00 0.01 6.00 1.10 4.50 0.92 1.75 1.29 2.16 0.56
14 0.38 0.66 1.17 1.44 0.83 0.75 0.36 3.33 4.67 1.92 0.98 1.20 6.00 0.00 1.44 3.00 0.83 0.86 0.86 4.00 1.50
15 0.30 0.66 0.52 0.73 1.20 1.33 1.00 0.61 1.68 5.33 3.00 0.37 1.10 1.44 0.00 3.00 1.88 0.52 0.86 4.00 0.38
16 0.32 0.56 0.56 0.75 0.63 0.79 0.48 1.11 1.56 1.78 1.00 1.11 4.50 3.00 3.00 0.01 4.44 2.24 3.50 1.92 0.89
17 0.14 0.29 0.24 0.30 0.31 0.49 0.30 0.31 0.55 0.82 0.82 0.39 0.92 0.83 1.88 4.44 0.00 0.97 2.19 0.83 0.20
18 0.14 0.25 0.34 0.29 0.24 0.29 0.21 0.43 0.60 0.46 0.39 1.40 1.75 0.86 0.52 2.24 0.97 0.00 5.44 0.52 0.14
19 0.14 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.24 0.33 0.25 0.29 0.40 0.39 0.33 0.71 1.29 0.86 0.86 3.50 2.19 5.44 0.00 0.66 0.14
20 0.49 1.17 1.17 1.44 1.88 1.33 0.73 1.88 4.67 5.33 1.92 0.47 2.16 4.00 4.00 1.92 0.83 0.52 0.66 0.00 1.50
H 0.06 0.11 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.13 0.07 0.31 0.78 0.32 0.16 0.14 0.56 1.50 0.38 0.89 0.20 0.14 0.14 1.50 0.00
Note: “M” is a large positive number.

© ASCE 04014028-6 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev.

 • Operational cost for feeder buses: $2 per km; and
• Operational cost for drivers: $6 per h.
Table 1 summarizes the passenger demands at each gated com-
munity, and the data on passenger demand are from the traveler
willingness survey for a flexible transit system carried out by
Shandong University in the study area in March 2013. The research
team randomly selected residents living in the 20 communities in-
side the service area to conduct the self-report questionnaire-based
survey. The age of selected representatives ranges from 10 to 65
and the sample size is 15 for each community. Table 2 shows
the travel time matrix between each demand collection node and
the transfer station.
The proposed model was first solved in CPLEX 12.2 to optimal-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Maryland on 06/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5, where blue dots represent demand collection points in the
service network and the shaded area is the optimized service area.
It can be observed that not all communities are selected to be served
by the optimization model (points of 1, 7, 12, 15, and 17 are not
selected as part of the service area).
Bus routing plans are also shown in Fig. 5 using different types
of arrows. Table 3 details the routing plans for each bus in the fleet.
As shown in Table 3, the capacities of all buses are fully utilized to
serve passengers as long as the maximum travel time and minimum
route length are not violated. Apparently, the proposed mathemati-
cal model can yield a valid service area, reasonable demand assign-
ments, and vehicle routing plans for the study area. However, it
takes hours for the model to be solved, which may hinder its ap-

ity, and a graphical illustration of the optimization results is given in plication in large-scale cases. Therefore, a metaheuristic approach

2 7 2 7
6 6
1 (8-6) 1 (8-6)
5 5
11 11
4 4
(8) 10 (8) 10
3 3

9 9
20 (6) 15 20 (6) 15

8 (5) 8
(6)
21 21
14 14

17 17
13 16 13 16
(9)

12 12
19 19
Demand Points Demand Points
18 18
H Transfer Hub H Transfer Hub
Vehicle Routes Vehicle Routes

Service Area Service Area

(a) (b)

Demand Points Demand Points

H Transfer Hub H Transfer Hub

Vehicle Routes Vehicle Routes

Service Area Service Area

(c) (d)

Fig. 6. Solution procedure of the heuristic approach

© ASCE 04014028-7 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev.

 Table 5. Comparison between Optimization Model and Heuristic area (shown in shaded area). The notation “8–6” means 6 out of
Demands Total operational Computation 8 passengers at node 6 are served at the current step. Similarly,
Algorithms serviced (persons) cost ($) time (s) nodes 14 and 16 have the largest gravity to the transfer station, thus
two new choice chains are constructed and the service area is
Optimization model 100 27.6 >3,600
Heuristic 100 28.2 <60
expanded as shown in Figs. 6(b and c). In Fig. 6(d), nodes 9
Difference (%) 0 2 — and 15 are chosen as the first nodes to start to construct the
new choice chains. The final route plans and updated service area
solved by the heuristic approach are shown in Fig. 6(d).
Table 5 compares the results generated from the heuristic and
Table 6. Sensitivity Analysis of Fleet Size
CPLEX. It can be found that the proposed heuristic provides a
reasonably good solution in terms of both computation time and
Operator cost per solution quality.
Passengers Total operator Total travel passenger served To assist transit operators to better manage fleet size, bus capac-
Fleet size served cost ($) time (min) ($=passenger × 100)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Maryland on 06/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ity, and minimize the operational cost, sensitivity analyses have

1 20 4.8 8 24.0 been performed on the impact of the fleet size and bus capacity.
2 40 9.6 16 24.0 For the same demand level and distribution in the case study,
3 60 15.0 25 25.0 the problem is solved for a fleet size ranging from 1 to 10, and
4 80 21.0 35 26.3
the sensitivity analysis results for fleet size are summarized in
5 100 27.6 46 27.6
6 120 36.6 61 30.5
Table 6 and Fig. 7.
7 130 40.8 68 31.4 One can observe from Table 6 that the operator cost per passen-
8 130 40.8 68 31.4 ger served does not change when the fleet size is less than 3,
9 130 49.2 82 37.8 indicating that the operator can increase the fleet size to increase
10 130 49.2 82 37.8 the number of passengers served. Once the fleet size is large
than 6, all passengers in the network can be served, and there is
no need to increase the fleet size because it will just incur higher
cost.
Operator cost Demand serviced Operator cost per demand*100 In order to assess the validity of the model and effectiveness of
Cost Demand
60 140 the heuristic method, more scenarios are carried out for compari-
50 120 son, and the results are listed in Table 7. The CPLEX software was
used to obtain the optimal solution and compare with the results
100
40 resolved by the heuristic method. The error of demands served
80 is within 10%, and the difference in operator cost per demands
30
60 is within 20%.
20
40
10 20
Conclusions and Recommendations
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Fleet size
Choosing the optimal service area is the foremost and critical step
in planning and designing a feeder transit service. In this paper, the
Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis of the fleet size authors consider a flex-route transit system that provides a demand-
responsive service to passengers located in irregularly shaped and
gated communities, which can find its typical application in many
Chinese cities. A two-level optimization model is proposed to
is developed to solve the model. According to Eq. (17), one first design the appropriate service area and routing plans for such a
constructs the gravity matrix for the study area, given in Table 4. system given the fleet size and travel times between demand
Fig. 6 presents the solution procedure using the proposed heu- collection nodes. A gravity-based solution heuristic is developed
ristic. Given the gravity matrix, node 20 has the largest gravity to to obtain meta-optimal solutions to the model in a reasonable
the transfer station. Therefore, the first choice chain is found in amount of time. The case study results show that the proposed
Fig. 6(a), and nodes 20, 10, and 6 are included in the service mathematical model can yield a valid service area, a reasonable

Table 7. Results of Different Demand Scenarios

CPLEX results Heuristic results
Operator cost per Operator cost per
Passenger Passengers passenger served Passengers passenger served Difference in Difference in cost
demand served ($=passenger × 100) served ($=passenger × 100) passengers served (%) per passenger (%)
130 100 27.6 100 28.2 0 2
120 100 32.4 98 36.7 2 13
100 100 32.4 89 39.1 11 21
80 80 43.5 73 49.3 10 13
60 60 58 58 64.1 3 11
40 40 87 37 102.2 7.5 17
20 20 174 19 195.8 5 13

© ASCE 04014028-8 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev.

 demand assignment, and vehicle routing plans for the study
network, and the proposed heuristic provides a reasonably good
solution in terms of both computation time and solution quality.
Through sensitivity analysis, the proposed model can also be used
to assist transit operators to better manage fleet size and minimize
the operational cost.
The next step is to check the performance of the model in
dealing with larger size problems and investigate the impacts of
key model parameters on optimization results. Computational per-
formance of the proposed solution algorithm will also be evaluated.
In addition, the problem studied in this paper is static in the way
that the customer demand and the fleet size are given. Assignment
of demands and routing of vehicles also use a static representation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of Maryland on 06/29/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
of the network. Extending the model to an explicitly dynamic
setting, with time-varying demand generation rates and travel
times, is another worthwhile direction for further work.
Acknowledgments
This research reported in this paper is supported by the China
Scholarship Council, National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 51108248), Natural Science Foundation of
Shandong Province of China (Grant No. ZR2011GQ002), and
Independent Innovation Foundation of Shandong University
(Grant No. 2011TB019).
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
Ch = operational cost for drivers per operating hour
(unit: dollar);
Cijk = number of passengers at point i assigned to vehicle k
traversing from i to j (unit: person);
Cm = operational cost per mi (unit: dollar);
Di = passenger demand at point i (unit: person);
H = set of demand collection/pick-up points;
H 0 = the transfer station;
K = set of vehicles;
N = the fleet size (unit: vehicle);
Qk = capacity of vehicle k (unit: person);
Sv = average vehicle speed (unit: mph);
T max = maximum travel time (unit: min);
tij = average travel time between points i and j
(unit: min);
U ik = an auxiliary (real) variable for sub-tour elimination
n constraint in route k; and
1 Wirasinghe, S. C. (1980). “Nearly optimal parameters for a rail/feeder-bus
Y ijk ¼ = if point i precedes point j on the route of vehicle k.
0 system on a rectangular grid.” Transport. Res. Gen., 14(1), 33–40.
© ASCE 04014028-9
J. Urban Plann. Dev.
References
Aldaihani, M. M., Quadrifoglio, L., Dessouky, M. M., and Hall, R. (2004).
“Network design for a grid hybrid transit service.” Transport. Res. Pol.
Pract., 38(7), 511–530.
Alshalalfah, B., and Shalaby, A. (2010). “Development of important rela-
tionships for the planning of flex-route transit services.” Proc., 91th
TRB Annual Meeting (CD-ROM), Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, DC.
Alshalalfah, B. W. (2009). Planning, design and scheduling of flex-route
transit service, Ph.D. thesis, Graduate Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ.
of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Chien, S., and Schonfeld, P. (1998). “Joint optimization of a rail transit line
and its feeder bus system.” J. Adv. Transp., 32(3), 253–284.
Chien, S., and Yang, Z. (2000). “Optimal feeder bus routes on irregular
street networks.” J. Adv. Transp., 34(2), 213–248.
China Communications, and Transportation Association of Rail Traffic.
(2012). “Related data of the report of metro operational performance
evaluation system in China.” 〈http://www.chinametro.net/Content/
DisplayNews.aspx?ID=30943〉 (Dec. 10, 2013).
Ciaffi, F., Cipriani, E., and Petrelli, M. (2012). “Feeder bus network design
problem: A new metaheuristic procedure and real size applications.”
Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci., 54, 798–807.
CPLEX 12.2 [Computer software]. ILOG, Sunnyvale, CA.
Jerby, S., and Ceder, A. (2006). “Optimal routing design for shuttle bus
service.” Transportation Research Record 1971, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 14–22.
Koffman, D. (2004). Operational experiences with flexible transit services,
TCRP Synthesis 53, Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, DC.
Kuah, G. K., and Perl, J. (1988). “Optimization of feeder bus routes and
bus-stop spacing.” J. Transp. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1988)
114:3(341), 341–354.
Kuah, G. K., and Perl, J. (1989). “The feeder-bus network-design problem.”
J. Oper. Res. Soc., 40(8), 751–767.
Kuan, S. N., Ong, H. L., and Ng, K. M. (2006). “Solving the feeder bus
network design problem by genetic algorithms and ant colony optimi-
zation.” Adv. Eng. Softw., 37(6), 351–359.
Li, X., and Quadrifoglio, L. (2009). “Optimal zone design for feeder transit
services.” Transportation Research Record 2111, Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC, 100–108.
Li, X., and Quadrifoglio, L. (2010). “Feeder transit services: Choosing be-
tween fixed and demand responsive policy.” Transport. Res. C Emerg.
Tech., 18(5), 770–780.
Mohaymany, A. S., and Gholami, A. (2010). “Multimodal feeder network
design problem: Ant colony optimization approach.” J. Transp. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000110, 323–331.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2001). China statistical yearbook
2001, Beijing, China.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2011). China statistical yearbook
2011, Beijing, China.
Quadrifoglio, L., and Li, X. (2009). “A methodology to derive the critical
demand density for designing and operating feeder transit services.”
Transp. Res. Part B: Method., 43(10), 922–935.
J. Urban Plann. Dev.