Competing or complimentary: Modeling transit ridership at route-level considering inter-route interdependencies

被引:0
|
作者
Patni, Sagar [1 ]
Srinivasan, Sivaramakrishnan [2 ]
机构
[1] Nygaard Consulting Associates, San Francisco, CA 94105 USA
[2] Univ Florida, Dept Civil & Coastal Engn, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA
关键词
Transit; Routes; Compete; Complementary; BUS RIDERSHIP; LAND-USE;
D O I
10.1016/j.tbs.2024.100815
中图分类号
U [交通运输];
学科分类号
08 ; 0823 ;
摘要
Transit routes in a network are often interdependent. Two or more transit routes complement or compete based on their spatial and temporal overlaps. Two routes complement each other if riders get to transfer from one route to another at a station. Two routes compete if they serve a common geographic stretch, giving the riders an option of choosing either one of them for their travel. When a new route is introduced by the transit agency, ridership on the existing routes changes too. Thus, it is important to assess inter-route relationships and their effect on transit ridership at route-level for better predictions. This research develops a route-level transit ridership model that is capable of capturing the effect of inter-route relationships in a transit network in addition to commonly used explanatory variables. Route-level ridership data were collected from the transit agency of the city of Gainesville, Florida (USA). For the city of Gainesville, model results showed that routes that share up to nine transit stops in a stretch have complementary relationship. However, when the number of common stops increases to 10 or more, routes start to compete. With every 10% increase in the supply of the routes that share ten or more transit stops with the subject route, logarithm of the monthly ridership on the subject route decreases by 0.96%.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 17 条
  • [1] A simultaneous route-level transit patronage model: demand, supply, and inter-route relationship
    Zhong-Ren Peng
    Kenneth J. Dueker
    James Strathman
    Janet Hopper
    Transportation, 1997, 24 : 159 - 181
  • [2] A simultaneous route-level transit patronage model: Demand, supply, and inter-route relationship
    Peng, ZR
    Dueker, KJ
    Strathman, J
    Hopper, J
    TRANSPORTATION, 1997, 24 (02) : 159 - 181
  • [3] REVIEW OF ROUTE-LEVEL RIDERSHIP PREDICTION TECHNIQUES.
    Menhard, H.Robert
    Ruprecht, Gary F.
    Transportation Research Record, 1983, : 22 - 24
  • [4] Evaluation architecture discussion of route-level transit service quality
    Yang, Xiaoguang
    An, Jian
    Liu, Haode
    Teng, Jing
    Zhang, Dong
    Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology, 2010, 10 (04) : 13 - 21
  • [5] Perceived Quality of Bus Transit Services: A Route-Level Analysis
    Nikel, Connor
    Eldeeb, Gamal
    Mohamed, Moataz
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, 2020, 2674 (02) : 79 - 91
  • [6] A joint panel binary logit and fractional split model for converting route-level transit ridership data to stop-level boarding and alighting data
    Rahman, Moshiur
    Yasmin, Shamsunnahar
    Eluru, Naveen
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART A-POLICY AND PRACTICE, 2020, 139 : 1 - 16
  • [7] Assessing public transit service equity using route-level accessibility measures and public data
    Karner, Alex
    JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY, 2018, 67 : 24 - 32
  • [8] Measuring Route-Level Passenger Perceived Transit Service Reliability with an Agent-Based Simulation Approach
    An, Jian
    Liu, Yue
    Yang, Xiaoguang
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, 2014, (2415) : 48 - 58
  • [9] The impact of COVID-19 on route-level changes in transit demand an analysis of five transit agencies in Florida, USA
    Patni, Sagar
    Srinivasan, Sivaramakrishnan
    Suarez, Juan
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH PART A-POLICY AND PRACTICE, 2023, 167
  • [10] Data-Driven Prediction of Route-Level Energy Us e for Mixed-Vehicle Transit Fleets
    Ayman, Afiya
    Wilbur, Michael
    Sivagnanam, Amutheezan
    Pugliese, Philip
    Dubey, Abhishek
    Laszka, Aron
    2020 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SMART COMPUTING (SMARTCOMP), 2020, : 41 - 48