| Literature DB >> 24526890 |
Mohammad Hadi Almasi1, Sina Mirzapour Mounes1, Suhana Koting1, Mohamed Rehan Karim1.
Abstract
A growing concern for public transit is its inability to shift passenger's mode from private to public transport. In order to overcome this problem, a more developed feeder bus network and matched schedules will play important roles. The present paper aims to review some of the studies performed on Feeder Bus Network Design and Scheduling Problem (FNDSP) based on three distinctive parts of the FNDSP setup, namely, problem description, problem characteristics, and solution approaches. The problems consist of different subproblems including data preparation, feeder bus network design, route generation, and feeder bus scheduling. Subsequently, descriptive analysis and classification of previous works are presented to highlight the main characteristics and solution methods. Finally, some of the issues and trends for future research are identified. This paper is targeted at dealing with the FNDSP to exhibit strategic and tactical goals and also contributes to the unification of the field which might be a useful complement to the few existing reviews.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24526890 PMCID: PMC3910130 DOI: 10.1155/2014/408473
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Feeder route generation methods in the literature.
| References | Initial building methods | Specify |
|---|---|---|
|
Kuah and Perl [ | H | Sequential savings |
|
Martins and Pato [ | H | Sequential savings and two-phase |
|
Shrivastav and Dhingra [ | H | HFRGA, Dijkstra's algorithm |
|
Chien et al. [ | Me | GA |
|
Kuan et al. [ | H | Delimiter algorithm, Breedam [ |
|
Kuan et al. [ | H | Delimiter algorithm, Breedam [ |
|
Shrivastava and O'mahony [ | H |
|
|
Shrivastava and O'mahony [ | H |
|
|
Shrivastava and O'mahony [ | H |
|
|
Shrivastava and O'mahony [ | H | Dijkstra's algorithm |
|
Mohaymany and Gholami [ | Me | ACO |
|
Gholami and Mohaymany [ | Me | ACO |
Figure 1The schematic categorization of FNSP.
Classification criteria from the problem perspective.
| Criteria | Consideration |
|---|---|
| Demand pattern | Many-to-one |
|
| |
| Problem scope | Morning |
|
| |
| Decision variable | Feeder zone boundary (Z) |
|
| |
| Constraint | Load factor (LF) |
Classification of the literature based on problem perspective.
| References | Objective | Decision variable | Constraint | Demand pattern | Urban or suburban | Application area and scope |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wirasinghe [ | Coordinate transit system (rail and bus) | Z | RH | Many-to-one | Urban | |
|
Wirasinghe et al. [ | Coordinate transit system (rail and bus) | Z, RS, RH | Many-to-one | Urban | Example, morning | |
| Wirasinghe [ | Coordinate operations | BRD, RSD, BF | Many-to-one | Urban | Calgary, peak | |
|
Hurdle and Wirasinghe [ | Optimize rail station spacing | RS | Many-to-one | Urban | Calgary, peak | |
|
Kuah and Perl [ | Optimal design for feeder bus | BS, BRL, BH | Many-to-one | |||
| Kuah and Perl [ | Optimal design for feeder bus | BRL, BF | BL, N, RF | Many-to-one | Suburban | Example benchmark, morning |
| Martins and Pato [ | Optimal design for feeder bus | BRL, BF | BL, N, F, RF | Many-to-one | Suburban | Example benchmark, morning |
|
Chien and Schonfeld [ | Optimal design of integrated rail and bus | RL, BH, BS, RS, BRL | Many-to-many | Example | ||
|
Chien and Yang [ | Optimize feeder route location and headway | BRL, BH | G, BU, RC | Many-to-one | Suburban | Example |
| Shrivastav and Dhingra [ | Development of routing and coordinated schedules | T | D, RL | Many-to-one | Suburban | Mumbai |
| Chien et al. [ | Total welfare (operator and user cost) | BRL, BH | G, BU, RC | Many-to-one | Suburban | Example |
|
Chowdhury and Chien [ | Coordinated design of an intermodal transit system | BH, RH, BT | C, BH, RH | Many-to-one | Urban | Numerical example |
| Kuan [ | Optimal design for feeder bus | BRL, BF | RL, N, RF | Many-to-one | Suburban | Example benchmark, morning |
| Kuan et al. [ | Optimal design for feeder bus | BRL, BF | BL, N, RF | Many-to-one | Suburban | Example benchmark, morning |
|
Chien [ | Total welfare (operator and user cost) | BH, N, BRL | C, N, BU | Urban | Sandy Hook, park | |
| Kuan et al. [ | Optimal design for feeder bus | BRL, BF | BL, N, RF | Many-to-one | Suburban | Example benchmark, morning |
| Shrivastava and O'mahony [ | Development of routing and coordinated schedules | BRL, BF | N, D, LF | Many-to-one | Suburban | Dublin |
| Shrivastava and O'mahony [ | Development of routing and coordinated schedules | BRL, BF | N, D, LF | Many-to-one | Suburban | Dublin |
| Shrivastava and O'mahony [ | Development of routing and coordinated schedules | BRL, BF | N, D, LF | Many-to-one | Suburban | Dublin, morning |
| Shrivastava and O'mahony [ | Development of routing and coordinated schedules | BRL, BF | N, D, LF | Many-to-one | Suburban | Dublin, morning |
| Mohaymany and Gholami [ | Optimize multimode feeder | BRL, BF, M | BL, N, F, BH, RS | Many-to-one | Suburban | Example benchmark, morning |
| Gholami and Mohaymany [ | Optimize multimode feeder | BRL, BF, M | BL, N, F, BH, RS | Many-to-one | Urban | North of Tehran |
|
Sivakumaran et al. [ | Coordination of vehicle schedules in a transit system | BH, RH, BL | Many-to-one | Urban | An idealized network | |
|
Hu et al. [ | Model for layout region of feeder | T | TD | Urban | Guangzhou | |
|
Ciaffi et al. [ | Develop routing and scheduling simultaneously | BRL, BF | BL | Urban | Winnipeg and Rome, morning | |
|
Cipriani et al. [ | Develop an operative tool in the bus system | BRL, BF | C, BL, F | Many-to-many | Urban | City of Rome |
|
Xiong et al. [ | Optimal routing problem | BRL, BH | D, BU | Many-to-one | Urban | Example |
Approaches and solution methods in the literature.
| References | Approach | Solution | Specify |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wirasinghe [ | A | M | |
| Wirasinghe et al. [ | A | M | |
| Wirasinghe [ | A | M | |
| Hurdle and Wirasinghe [ | A | M | |
| Kuah and Perl [ | A | M | |
| Kuah and Perl [ | N | H | Displacement, exchange |
| Martins and Pato [ | N | H | Displacement, exchange, TS |
| Chien and Schonfeld [ | A | ||
| Chien and Yang [ | A | Me | ES |
| Shrivastav and Dhingra [ | N | H | HFRGA |
| Chien et al. [ | A | Me | ES, GA |
| Chowdhury and Chien [ | A | H | |
| Kuan [ | N | Me | TS, SA, GA, ACO |
| Kuan et al. [ | N | Me | TS, SA |
| Chien [ | A | H | |
| Kuan et al. [ | N | Me | GA, ACO |
| Shrivastava and O'mahony [ | N | Me | GA |
|
Jerby and Ceder [ | A | H | |
| Shrivastava and O'mahony [ | N | Hy | GA and H |
| Shrivastava and O'mahony [ | N | Hy | GA and H, |
| Shrivastava and O'mahony [ | N | Hy | GA and H |
| Mohaymany and Gholami [ | N | Me | ACO |
| Gholami and Mohaymany [ | N | Me | ACO |
| Sivakumaran et al. [ | A | M | |
|
Martinez and Eiro [ | N | H | |
| Hu et al. [ | A | M | |
| Ciaffi et al. [ | N | Hy | GA and H |
| Cipriani et al. [ | N | Hy | GA and H |
“M” stands for “mathematical,” “H” for “heuristic,” “Me” for “metaheuristic,” and “Hy” for “hybrid.”
Figure 2Example of an actual road network in an analytic model.
Figure 3Example of a simple network model with eight nodes and nine links.