The Effect of Route-choice Strategy on Transit Travel Time Estimates

Abstract

Estimates of travel time by public transit often rely on the calculation of a shortest-path between two points for a given departure time. Such shortest-paths are time-dependent and not always stable from one moment to the next. Given that actual transit passengers necessarily have imperfect information about the system, their route selection strategies are heuristic and cannot be expected to achieve optimal travel times for all possible departures. Thus an algorithm that returns optimal travel times at all moments will tend to underestimate real travel times all else being equal. While several researchers have noted this issue none have yet measured the extent of the problem. This study observes and measures this effect by contrasting two alternative heuristic routing strategies to a standard shortest-path calculation. The Toronto Transit Commission is used as a case study and we model actual transit operations for the agency over the course of a normal week with archived AVL data transformed into a retrospective GTFS dataset. Travel times are estimated using two alternative route-choice assumptions: 1) habitual selection of the itinerary with the best average travel time and 2) dynamic choice of the next-departing route in a predefined choice set. It is shown that most trips present passengers with a complex choice among competing itineraries and that the choice of itinerary at any given moment of departure may entail substantial travel time risk relative to the optimal outcome. In the context of accessibility modelling, where travel times are typically considered as a distribution, the optimal path method is observed in aggregate to underestimate travel time by about 3-4 minutes at the median and 6-7 minutes at the \nth{90} percentile for a typical trip.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.