Semi-on-demand hybrid transit route design with shared autonomous mobility services
Max T. M. Ng et al.
Abstract
Shared Autonomous Vehicles (SAVs) enable transit agencies to design more agile and responsive services at lower operating costs. This study designs and evaluates a semi-on-demand hybrid route directional service in the public transit network, offering on-demand flexible route service in low-density areas and fixed route service in higher-density areas. We develop analytically tractable cost expressions that capture access, waiting, and riding costs for users, and distance-based operating and time-based vehicle costs for operators. Two formulations are presented for strategic and tactical decisions in flexible route portion, fleet size, headway, and vehicle size optimization, enabling the determination of route types between fixed, hybrid, and flexible routes based on demand, cost, and operational parameters. Analytical results demonstrate that the lower operating costs of SAVs favor more flexible route services. The practical applications and benefits of semi-on-demand feeders are presented with numerical examples and a large-scale case study in the Chicago metropolitan area, USA. Findings reveal scenarios in which flexible route portions serving passengers located further away reduce total costs, particularly user costs, whereas higher demand densities favor more traditional line-based operations. Current cost forecasts suggest smaller vehicles with fully flexible routes are optimal, but operating constraints or higher operating costs would favor larger vehicles with hybrid routes. The study provides an analytical tool to design SAVs as directional services and transit feeders, and tractable continuous approximation formulations for planning and research in transit network design.
2 citations
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.25 × 0.4 = 0.10 |
| M · momentum | 0.55 × 0.15 = 0.08 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.