M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C.

Muoz

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

A MODEL FOR THE OPTIMAL LOCATION OF BUS STOPS AND ITS APPLICATION TO A PUBLIC TRANSPORT CORRIDOR IN SANTIAGO

Marcos Medina-Tapia Departamento de Ingeniera Geogrfica, Universidad de Santiago de Chile Enrique Kirberg Baltiansky 03, Estacin Central, Chile; Tel: (+562) 718 2206 718 2230 marcos.medina@usach.cl Ricardo Giesen * Departamento de Ingeniera de Transporte y Logstica, Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile Av. Vicua Mackenna 4860, Macul, Chile; Tel: (+56 2) 354 5893 giesen@ing.puc.cl * Corresponding author Juan Carlos Muoz Departamento de Ingeniera de Transporte y Logstica, Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile Av. Vicua Mackenna 4860, Macul, Chile; Tel: (+56 2) 354 4270 jcm@ing.puc.cl

Word Count: 6,185 plus 1 Table and 4 Figures = 7,435

July, 2012 revised November, 2012

Submitted for presentation at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board January 2013, Washington D.C., and publication in Transportation Research Record

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

A MODEL FOR THE OPTIMAL LOCATION OF BUS STOPS AND ITS APPLICATION TO A PUBLIC TRANSPORT CORRIDOR IN SANTIAGO Marcos Medina-Tapia, Ricardo Giesen and Juan Carlos Muoz

ABSTRACT The location and number of bus stops are key to the operational efficiency of the services that use them, affecting commercial speed, reliability, and passenger access times. In defining the number of stops, a tradeoff arises between reduced access time, which widens a routes coverage area, and both the operational speed of the route and users in-vehicle travel time. The objective of this paper is to present the development of a model for optimally locating stops, and applying it to a public transport corridor in the city of Santiago, Chile. The proposed model employs a continuous and multiperiod approximation of corridor demand, allowing for the determination of the density of stops which minimizes the sum of operator costs and total costs to passengers. The model simultaneously solves for the optimal stop density and the headway between successive buses. The proposed model was applied to the Grecia Avenue corridor (in Santiago, Chile). Finally, the actual stop locations were compared with the optimal locations suggested by the model, and many similarities were found. KEYWORDS: Public Transport, Location Models, BRT, Continuous Approximation Method.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

The location and number of bus stops in a corridor have a large influence on the operational efficiency of service (commercial speed, reliability, passenger walking time), with a tradeoff existing between a lower access time (or equivalently, a larger coverage area) and the routes speed (Vuchic, 2007). The stop location problem has been approached in the literature through various focuses that can be classified along two dimensions. One dimension is the methodology employed: integer programming models, simulation, or analytic models. In the first category, the location is generally determined from a set of predetermined candidate points (e.g. Drezner and Hamacher, 2002; Murray, 2003; Murray and Wu, 2003; Bruno et al., 2002; Laporte et al., 2011). A second category includes simulation methods that allow for the determination of the number and spacing of stops (e.g. Fitzpatrick et al., 1997; Alterkawi, 2006). Third are analytical models based on the continuous approximation approach (see Daganzo, 2005), which usually determine the optimal distance between stops (Wirasinghe and Ghoneim, 1981; Vuchic, 2005), or which determine the minimum number of stops in a transit network considering critical distances to residential areas (Ceder, 2007). A second dimension discussed by Chien and Qin (2004) classifies past work by the complexity of the problem approached: models that use simplified demand distributions; models that optimize operation and stop distance simultaneously; and models that consider varying demand across time. The first category of studies is focused on locating stops by using simple demand distributions that do not vary in time (Wirasinghe y Ghoneim, 1981; Laporte et al., 2002). In the second category are studies that focus on the joint optimization of service design and stop spacing, such as in Kocur and Hendrickson (1982), Kuah and Perl (1988), Gibson and Fernndez (1995), Chien and Schonfeld (1997), and Chien and Quin (2004). Third are studies that optimize the public transport system while considering that demand varies in time. Work along these lines has been presented in Hurdle (1973), Clarens and Hurdle (1975), and Chang and Schonfeld (1991). However, only Hurdle (1973) and Chang and Schonfeld (1991) solve the problems of bus stop location of bus stops and headways simultaneously. The objective of this paper is to present the development of a simultaneous optimization model for stop location and headways for a service with multiperiod demand based on a continuous approximation model. For this, a demand profile of passengers who wish to board and alight is defined at each point along the corridor. The model considers two variables: the density of stops in the vicinity of each point of the corridor and the frequency of operation in each time period. The objective is to minimize the sum of total passenger and operator costs. Increasing the density of stops reduces walking time, but it increases travel times, fleet requirements, and infrastructure investment and maintenance costs. The proposed stop location model is presented in Section 2 below. In Section 3, the main analytical results of the model are presented. In Section 4, the application of the model to the Avenida Grecia corridor is discussed. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the primary conclusions of this investigation.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

2 2.1

PROPOSED OPTIMIZATION MODEL System Studied

The system modeled consists of a corridor of length L in which buses travel in both directions and stop at a set of predetermined stops according to their schedules. It is assumed that the buses have a fixed capacity, belong to only one service, and are dispatched from terminals at the ends of the corridor according to the frequency of the service, which varies according to the period (i = 1m periods) and is equal in both directions. 2.2 Modeling Approach

The modeling approach adopted in this study involves a continuous analysis of the corridor, that is, certain model variables and parameters are represented through continuous functions that vary depending on the position, x, in the corridor. The model seeks to optimize the stop density ( ( ), where is the direction), minimizing both the passenger costs as well as the operator and infrastructure costs, while also determining the optimal frequency for each period of analysis. The main assumptions of the model are the following: Only one route travels on the corridor, and it stops at all stops. The user costs are composed of walking access times, waiting time, and in-vehicle travel time. For this analysis, the weights of three components are assumed to have the same value for all users, regardless of age, socioeconomic status, period of the day, etc. Passenger demand at each point of the corridor during a given period is described by a known, deterministic function that varies according to position. We consider a high frequency service in which there are no timetables. Thus within each period passenger arrivals are random, i.e. follow a Poisson process with demand rate specified at each point. The buses have sufficient capacity to transport all users, and users always board the first bus that passes. It is assumed that no bus congestion occurs at stops, so each bus opens its doors as soon as it arrives at a stop. 2.2.1 Model Parameters and Variables In all of the following definitions, the location, x, is defined between 0 and L, the direction, r, is defined for each of the two directions, and i is defined for each one of the m periods. The units in which each of these variables is measured are also included below. ( ) : Number of passengers who would like to board at x, in direction r, in period i [passengers/Km-Hr] ( ) : Number of passengers who would like to alight at x, in direction r, in period i [passengers/Km-Hr] ( ) : Cumulative number of passengers who have alighted from the bus between the start of the route and a point x in direction r [passengers/Hr]

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

( )

( )

: Cumulative number of passengers who have alighted from the bus between the start of the route and a point x in direction r [passengers/Hr] : Total user cost in the corridor [$/day] : Total operator cost in the corridor [$/day] : Total access and egress cost for users walking to the nearest stop in the corridor [$/day] : Total cost of in-vehicle travel time in the corridor [$/day] : Total cost of waiting time in the corridor [$/day] : Total vehicle operating cost in the corridor [$/day] : Total installation and maintenance cost for stops in the corridor [$/day] : Passenger load for buses at point x in direction r of the corridor [passengers/Hr] : Average walking speed for bus stop access and egress [Km/Hr] : Cruising speed of a bus in period i [Km/Hr] : Duration of period i [Hr], where , the span of service of the route operating on the corridor : Average fixed dead time per stop (to open and close doors, etc.) [Hr/stop] : Boarding time per passenger [Hr/passenger] : Alighting time per passenger [Hr/passenger] : Acceleration of a bus leaving stops [Km/Hr2] : Deceleration of a bus entering stops [Km/Hr2] : Value of walking access time [$/passenger-Hr] : Value of in-vehicle travel time [$/passenger-Hr] : Value of waiting time [$/passenger-Hr] : Vehicle cost per unit distance covered at cruising speed [$/veh-Km] : Fixed cost per bus [$/veh-day] : Hourly salary of drivers [$/driver-Hr] : Additional operating cost (beyond the cost of operating at cruise speed) for acceleration and deceleration per stop [$/stop] : Cost of idling at a stop [$/veh-Hr] : Fixed cost of installation (or construction) of a stop [$/stop-day] : Operation and maintenance cost of a stop [$/stop-Hr]

2.2.2 Decision Variable There are two decision variables in the model: the density of stops per kilometer of the corridor in direction r, ( ), which is a continuous function of x(); and the headway, , or time between successive buses in each period of operation i. 2.2.3 Demand Functions In the continuous modeling approach used, it is assumed that a stop can be located at any point along the corridor (Vuchic, 2005). Accordingly, boarding passengers are represented by ( ) ( ) for period i in direction r; these are continuous and alighting ones are represented by density functions in units of passengers per unit length (Km) and time (Hr), as shown in Figure ( ) and who 1(a). In Figure 1(b), the cumulative number of passengers who have boarded ( ) between the start of the corridor and point x; these can be calculated directly have alighted

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

1 2 3 4

( ). Finally, Figure 1(c) shows the passenger load profile ( ( )), which is from ( ) and calculated as the difference between the total number of passengers who have boarded and alighted between the start of the corridor and point x (Vuchic, 2005).
(a)
Density Densidad [pax/km-hr] [pax/Km-Hr]

bri(x) ari (x)

x [Km]

Cumulative Passengers P. Acumulado [pax/hr] [pax/Hr]

(b)
Bri (x)

Ari (x)
x [Km]

(c)
Load Carga [pax/hr] [pax/Hr]

Pri (x)=Bri (x) - Ari (x) x

x [Km]

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Figure 1. Passengers who board and alight, and the load profile of a corridor. Source: Vuchic (2005). 2.3 Cost Functions

The total cost ( ) is the sum of daily costs incurred by users ( ) and the operator ( ). The former is detailed in Equation 2 and is the sum of stop access and egress costs ( ), waiting costs ( ), and in-vehicle travel time costs ( ) of passengers who use the route. The second cost function, presented in Equation 3, corresponds to operator costs, composed of fleet operating costs ( ) and stop installation and operation costs ( ). (1) (2)

18 (3) 19

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

2.3.1 User Costs a) Access Cost

For the access cost ( ), it is assumed that the walking access and egress stages are comprised of two components: one perpendicular to the corridor (corridor approach), which is independent of stop locations, and one parallel to the corridor (stop approach), which is part of the cost function to be minimized. The latter walking distance is approximated as ( ( ) ), where dr(x) is the stop spacing in direction r in the vicinity of point x, which is equivalent to the inverse of the density between stops.
( ) ( )

(4)

Accordingly, ( ) represents the expected walking distance for a passenger. By multiplying by the inverse of walking speed ( ), the expected walking time is obtained. If the expression is then multiplied by both the number of passengers who access and leave the corridor at point x and the value of walking access time ( ), the estimated total access cost for the corridor is as follows:
( ( ) ( )) ( )

( )

(5)

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

b)

Waiting Cost

The total cost of waiting ( ) represents the monetized value of passengers waiting time. For this we assume that there is always available capacity in the buses, which allows for the additional assumption that the waiting time of users during period i grows linearly with the average headway between buses, . This linear relationship is governed by a parameter which describes the routes regularity. If the headways between buses are perfectly regular, the parameter takes a value of 0.5, and if the bus arrivals occur according to a Poisson process, it takes a value of 1. The following equation shows the total waiting cost.
( )

(6)

30 31 32 33 34 35 36

c)

In-Vehicle Cost

The total in-vehicle cost ( ) represents the in-vehicle costs experienced by all of the corridors passengers. This cost is composed of three costs, as can be seen in Equation 7. (7)

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Where: : Cost associated with the travel time when the vehicle is at cruising speed [$/day] : Cost associated with the travel time when the vehicle is accelerating from or decelerating for a stop [$/day] : Cost associated with the time stopped for the boarding and alighting of passengers at each stop [$/day] In this analysis we assume that the stops are sufficiently spaced for the bus to reach its cruising speed in each inter-stop interval. The cost associated with time aboard the bus while the bus is traveling at a constant cruising speed can be expressed as the sum along the corridor of the time experienced by people onboard the bus at each point. This is formulated as the product of the load of the bus in point x integrated over the length of the segment, the duration of the period of time, the inverse of the cruising speed of the bus, and the value of time of the users:
( )

(8)

16 17 18 19 20

The additional cost for time lost accelerating and decelerating can be approximated as the time lost at each stop ( ) multiplied by the quantity of people who experience it, which can be expressed in the following form:
( ) ( )

(9) ) and acceleration

21 22 23 24

The extra time lost at each stop has components for bus deceleration ( ( ):
( )

(10)

25 26 27 28

Third, once the bus is stopped, all passengers aboard experience a delay equal to the time it takes for other users to board and alight ( ( )):
( ) ( ) ( )

(11)

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

This dwell time, ( ), is related to the number of passengers who board and alight, which can be modeled in two ways: parallel or sequential boardings and alightings (Fernndez y Planzer, 2002). The parallel approach is normally used to consider an onboard fare payment system in which one door is used for boardings and one or more doors are used for alighting and the dwell time is governed by the whichever process takes longer to be completed (Equation 12). The sequential approach is used for corridors with pre-payment on the bus platforms, so all of the buses doors are shared by boarding and alighting passengers. Accordingly, the dwell time

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

1 2 3 4 5

consists of the sum of boarding and alighting times (Equation 13). Clearly, in both cases the parameters bri and ari will vary depending on available fare payment technologies and the physical design of the bus boarding points.
( ) ( ) ( ( ( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ) )) { { } } { { } }

(12) (13)

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

2.3.2 Operator Costs The operator cost function is composed of the vehicle operating costs ( ) and the costs of installing and maintaining costs ( ). a) Vehicle Operating Cost

The formulation of the cost associated with vehicles ( ) is based on the multiperiod model presented by Fernndez et al. (2005), who decompose it into fleet requirement costs, driver salaries, and vehicle operation costs according to the following expression: (14) Where: : : : : Cost associated with the fleet [$/day] Cost associated with driver pay [$/day] Cost associated with the distance traveled by buses at cruising speed [$/day] Cost associated with the distanced traveled by buses accelerating from or braking for bus stops [$/day] : Cost associated with time spent idling at bus stops [$/day] The cost of the fleet ( ) is the product of the fixed unit cost per bus ( ) and the number of buses required for peak period service, which determines the fleet size required.
( )

(15)

Where: ( ) : Required fleet size to maintain an average headway, h, between buses [veh] { } : Peak-period headway [Hr], such that The fleet size ( ) required for operation corresponds to the quotient of the cycle time ( ) and the peak period headway ( ), that is, . The cycle time of period i ( ) is related to the sum of the time spent traveling the corridor (in both directions) at cruising speed ( ) ), opening and closing doors, and ( ), accelerating and decelerating at each stop ( ( ) ). That is: allowing for the boarding and alighting of passengers in each stop ( ( )

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

10

1
( ) ( ) ( ) { }

(16)

2 3 4 5

To estimate driver costs ( ), we assume that a fixed wage, , is paid for each on-duty hour of work, independent of the structure of shifts required to cover the required service.

(17)

6 7 8 9 10 11

On the other hand, the cost of operating the vehicle at cruising speed in each period equals the product of the number of cycles ( ), the distance covered per cycle at this speed ( ) and the unit cost per kilometer traveled ( ):

(18)

12 13 14

The additional cost for acceleration from and deceleration for stops can be expressed as:
( )

(19)

15 16 17

Finally, the cost for idling while passengers board and alight is expressed in the following:
( ) ( )

(20)

18 19 20 21 22 23

b)

Stop Cost

The cost associated with each stop consists of a fixed cost (scaled to an equivalent daily cost) for installation ( ) and a variable cost for operation and maintenance ( ), resulting in the following equation:
( ) ( )

(21)

24 25 26 27 28 29

2.4

Optimization of the System

The preceding expressions allow for the formulation of the following multiperiod model, which minimizes the total costs of the system as a function of the stop density in the vicinity of each point x and for each direction r and the headway for each period ( ).

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

11

1
{ ( ( ) { ( )) ( ) ( ( ( ( ) ( ) ( ( ( ) ) ( ) ( )) ( ) ( )) ( ) ( ) ) ( ) ( )} ( ) } ( ))

( ) ( ) ( )

(22)

2 3 4

Subject to:
( ) ( ( ) ( )) ( ) ( ) ( { ) } { } { } { { } } { }

(23) (24) (25) (26)

5 6
( )

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

The objective function consists of minimizing the total daily costs, represented by the sum of the costs of users and operators presented above. The constraints of the model are of three types: bus capacity, stop capacity, and equivalence of stop density in each corridor direction. The first set of constraints (23) requires that, for all points and time periods, the capacity provided be sufficient to transport the demand as specified in the load profile ( ( )). In this expression, corresponds to the capacity of one bus [users/veh]. It is important to keep in mind that the waiting time model assumes that users can always board the first bus to arrive. In the case of irregular headways this constraint would also require that the capacity provided be greater to product of the load profile and the maximum headway, rather than the average headway. So, in cases when the model returns solutions in which this constraint is binding (or has very little slack), the assumption that passengers board the first bus to pass may be violated and the result should be interpreted as one in which waiting time experienced by users has been underestimated. Along the same lines as the previous constraint, in the event that stops have a limited capacity of users, , the stop density ( ) for direction of the corridor must ensure sufficient capacity so that users who want to board or alight at a stop can do so. This is required by the second set of constraints (24).

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

An optional model constraint is to require that the density of stops be equal in both directions of the corridor (25). Finally, there are non-negativity constraints (26). 3 ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED MODEL

The model proposed in the preceding section entails nonlinear optimization. Given its complexity, two solution phases with different goals are proposed: in the first, the optimal headway is obtained, and in the second, the optimal stop density is obtained. 3.1 Phase I: Optimal Headway

Two alternative procedures are suggested to determine the optimum headway from the proposed model: replacing the variable delta with its first order conditions from the optimization problem, and an iterative process with the analytical expressions for headway and stop density. The first procedure consists of solving the model by replacing the stop density decision variable with the analytic expression obtained from the first order conditions of the optimization problem, which depends on the position in the corridor, , and the headway , that is, ( ) ( ). This expression is discussed in detail below. Through this approach, the model is transformed into a problem that has variables (according to the number of periods). The second procedure consists of iterating the analytic expressions for headway and stop density as functions of one another until reaching convergence. First, a relatively low frequency is assigned as the initial headway. Then, the headway calculated from the preceding step is iteratively replaced in the analytic expression for stop density by satisfying the applicable constraints; the new value of the stop density then replaces the previous value in the equation for the optimal headway, subject to the corresponding constraints. This is completed when the headway reaches convergence within a specified tolerance. Once the optimal headway is found, the stop density for each point of the corridor x is then found as part of Phase II, as explained further below. Next are presented the analytical expressions for the first order condition of the headway variable, considering the two cases of distinct or equal stop densities in the two corridor directions. 3.1.1 Different Density for Each Direction For this case, Equation (27) shows the optimal headway for the peak period ( Equation (28) shows this expression for the other periods.
( ) ( ( ) ( ) ( )) ( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) )

), while

(27)

41

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

( ( ) ( ) ( )) ( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) )

13

(28)
( { } )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

( ) ( ) In Equations (27) and (28), the value of if the stop time is governed by ( ) boardings; otherwise the stop time is proportional to boardings and alightings, and ( ) ( ) . These expressions are subject to the constraint represented by Equation (23).

3.1.2 Equal Density for Both Directions For the case of equal stop density for both corridor directions, the following constraint must be incorporated into the model: ( ) ( ) ( ) (29) For this case, Equation (30) shows the optimal headway for the peak period ( Equation (31) shows this expression for the other periods.
( ( )( ( ) ( ( )) ) ( )) ( ( ( ) ( ) ( ( ) ( ( ) )) ( ) ))

), while

( )

(30)

15
( ( ( ) ( ( )) ) ( )) ( ( ( ( ) ) ( ) ( ( ) ( ) ( )) ( ) ))

(31)
{ } )

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

In Equations (30) and (31), the value of ( ) will depend on whether the stop time is governed by boardings or is proportional to boardings and alightings, subject to the constraint represented by Equation (23). 3.2 Phase II: Optimal Stop density

Once the optimal headway is determined, it is possible to establish the optimal stop density, which, in this phase, only depends on the position along the corridor. Each case is considered below. 3.2.1 Different Density for Each Direction The specified total cost function is minimized by setting the derivative with respect to ( ) equal to zero and solving for the optimal stop density. It is interesting to note that modeling the system by using a continuous approximation allows for a solution for each point x independently of the other points of the corridor. That is, for the

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

expression to be minimized, each integrand must be minimized. So it is sufficient to minimize the expression ( ( )) for the total cost function ( ( )) . Therefore, Equation (32) describes the form of obtaining the optimal stop density through the first derivative of the total cost with respect to the variable ( ) and setting the resulting expression to zero.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

(32)

The density of stops for the multiperiod case is presented in Equation (33), which is subject to the constraint of Equation (24).
( ) ( ( ) ( ) ( ( ( ) ) ( )) ( ) ( ) )

(33)

12 13 14 15 16 17

3.2.2 Equal Density for Both Directions Equation (34) is the expression for the case in which the stop density is equal in both directions subject to the constraint of Equation (24).
( ) ( ( ( ) ) ( ( ( ) ( ) ( ( ) )) ( ( ) ) ( ( )) ( ) ( )

(34)
))

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

The proposed model was applied to the Avenida Grecia corridor, located in the east sector of Greater Santiago, Chile. 4 4.1 APPLICATION TO CASE STUDY Description of Case Study

The corridor selected for the case study, Avenida Grecia, is located in the eastern sector of Greater Santiago, crossing the municipalities of uoa and Pealoln, with a length of 10.4 kilometers. There are currently 22 stops in the westbound direction of the corridor, and 21 in the eastbound direction (Figure 2).

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

15
(a)

(b)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Figure 2. Spatial distribution of stops along Avenida Grecia for the: (a) westbound direction and (b) eastbound direction.

One set of parameters used in the model consists of the continuous functions of passenger boardings and alightings. These were obtained through the database of the DICTUC Study (2010), with counts of boardings and alightings made in December, 2009 and March, 2010. These profiles are included in the Appendix. For stop access and egress walking speed, 3.6 [Km/Hr], or 1 [m/s], a standard value within transportation engineering studies, was used. For bus acceleration and deceleration, the values suggested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1994 in Saka (2001) were used. AASHTO suggests an acceleration of 0.5 [m/s2] and a deceleration of 2 [m/s2]. The time lost when the bus is at a stop can be decomposed into a fixed stop time and boarding and alighting times, the latter of which are proportional to the number of passengers who complete each action (see Fernndez et al. (2009; 2010)). In Fernndez et al. (2010), onboard fare payment for trunk routes is considered, with resulting average values of 7.06 [seconds/stop]

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

for fixed stop time, 1.55 [seconds/user] for boarding and 0.99 [seconds/user] for alighting. In the case of fare prepayment, the resulting average values are 5.77 [seconds/stop] for fixed stop time, 1.74 [seconds/user] for boarding and 1.26 [seconds/user] for alighting. For the value-of-time parameters, the values determined in Raveau (2009), which were calculated for Santiago, were used. These values are 4.09 [US$/user-Hr] for walking time, 2.73 [US$/userHr] for waiting time, and 1.64 [US$/user-Hr]. Without more detailed information available, it was assumed that the cost of bus acceleration and deceleration ( ) is equal to the cost incurred when traveling a unit distance at cruising speed ( ). It was also assumed that the idling cost for a vehicle ( ) is zero, as in Fernndez et al. (2005). For stop construction costs, information presented in the SECTRA Study (2002) was used. This study states that construction costs are US$52,200 for a Salamanca-style stop and the cost of a high-capacity stop is US$228,400. Lastly, a minimal value is used for stop maintenance because stops are not managed by a company, except for those that have fare prepayment. Specifically, maintenance cost for each stop is assumed to be one person who earns minimum wage and cleans for one hour each day. 4.2 Modeling Results

Table 1 shows the both the currently observed headways and the optimal headways suggested by the model, using 3 periods (morning peak, evening peak, and off-peak). As seen in the table, differences between the observed and suggested values range from 1.1 minutes in the morning peak (which corresponds to 65%) up to 5.8 minutes for the evening peak (which corresponds to 232%). Table 1. Observed and Optimal Headways Period Morning Peak Evening Peak Off-Peak Observed Headways [min] 1.7 1.8 2.5 Optimal Headways [min] 2.8 3.1 8.3

32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

Figure 3 shows the result of the discretization of the stop density function using 3 periods for the case of the corridor in the westbound (Figure 3.a) and eastbound (Figure 3.b) directions. The circles on the stop density curve represent the stops resulting from the discretization and the vertical lines delineate the coverage area of each stop, formed so that the areas they define with the curve and the x-axis will all have a unit area and contain a stop. On the horizontal axis of the figure are plotted circles that represent the location of the corridors currently existing stops. As a reference, the figure includes the position of relevant corridor landmarks such as the Municipality of Pealoln (P), intersection with Avenida Tobalaba (Tb), intersection with

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

17

1 2 3

Avenida Amrico Vespucio (AV), Pedaggico (Pd), Estadio Nacional (EN), and the intersection with Avenida Vicua Mackenna (VM). (a)
Multiperiod Discretization, Westbound Direction

(x) [stops/km]

(b)
Multiperiod Discretization, Eastbound Direction

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Figure 3. Discretization of the stop density for the multiperiod case (3 periods) for the corridor in: (a) the westbound direction and (b) the eastbound direction. Figure 4 shows the result of the discretization of the stop density function using 3 periods, for the case in which the stop density is equal in both directions. While the number of stops obtained is the same as in the previous case, the demand function differs from the two profiles shown above, so the proposed stop location is different from the previous cases and the current configuration. For the corridor in the westbound direction (Figure 3.a), the optimal number of stops is 23.7, taking the capacity constraints of buses and stops into account; the average distance between stops is decreased by 7.2% compared to the current configuration. In the eastbound direction (Figure 3.b), the optimal number of stops is 23.8 and the average distance between stops is decreased 11.6% from the current configuration.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

(x) [stops/km]

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

Multiperiod Discretization, Both Directions

18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Figure 4. Discretization of stop density for the multiperiod case (3 periods) for the corridor in both directions. 5 CONCLUSIONS

In this project, a continuous and deterministic model was developed to identify the optimal location of bus stops in a corridor by using a multiperiod structure of trips. The model was applied to the case of the Avenida Grecia corridor. Additionally, the model developed solves the stop location and frequency determination problems simultaneously, considering the cycle time as a function of the passengers who board or alight the buses at stops in each period. The proposed set of stop locations results in a reduction of total costs of about 20%. The proposed headways are longer than the current ones (over 60%), especially in the off-peak period. The discretization process determined the location of stops in the corridor so that they would have areas under the curve that are all equal to one. This showed interesting results, in that the distance between stops decreased between 7.2% and 11.6% compared to the current stop configuration. The model proposed accordingly allows for the determination of stop densities that, after being discretized, conform to a set of stops with a better spatial distribution than the current stops. Even though bus stops cannot be located anywhere along the corridor, and therefore the specific locations obtained by this approach may not be feasible, the model provides a very valuable output by identifying the number of bus stops to be installed and their approximate locations. It is important to recognize that the mathematical form of the objective function is quite flat around its optimal solution, and therefore small perturbations in the proposed solution have very little impact in the total cost. In the case of Avenida Grecia, the model is clearly robust in its results, since both the stop density and the headways are not very sensitive to variations in parameters. The maximum variation that is observed is the 5% that results from a 10% change in the value of walking access time.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

(x) [stops/km]

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Even though the application presented here considers an avenue that already has a public transit corridor, the model is designed as a decision-making tool for stop locations in corridors that have not yet been built. The model could later be extended to consider the impact on stop density of a limited stop express service operating in the corridor. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the financial support of the ACT-32 Project Real-Time Intelligent Control for Integrated Transit Systems and FONDECYT project 1110720. This research was also supported by the Across Latitudes and Cultures- Bus Rapid Transit Centre of Excellence funded by the Volvo Research and Educational Foundations (VREF). REFERENCES Alterkawi, M. (2006). A computer simulation analysis for optimizing bus stops spacing: The case of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Habitat International, 30(3), 500-508. Bruno G., Gendreau M., Laporte G. (2002). A heuristic for the location of a rapid transit line. Computers & Operations Research, 29(1), 1-12. Ceder, A. (2007). Public transit planning and operation: theory, modeling and practice. Oxford, UK: Elsevier. Chang, S. y Schonfeld, P. (1991). Multiple period optimization of bus transit systems. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 25B(6), 453-478. Chien, S. y Schonfeld, P. (1997). Optimization of Grid Transit System in Heterogeneous Urban Environment. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 123(1), 28-35. Chien, S. y Qin, Z. (2004). Optimization of bus stop locations for improving transit accessibility. Transportation Planning and Technology, 27(3), 211227. Clarens, G. y Hurdle, V.F. (1975). An Operating Strategy for a Commuter Bus System. Transportation Science, 9(1), 1-20. Daganzo, C. (2005). Logistics System Analysis (4a ed.). Berln, Alemania: Editorial Springer. DICTUC. (2010). Servicio de Elaboracin de Indicadores de Desempeo del Sistema de Transporte Pblico de Santiago. Drezner, Z. y Hamacher H. (2002). Facility location: applications and theory. Berln, Alemania: Editorial Springer. Fernndez, R. y Planzer, R. (2002). On the capacity of bus transit systems. Transport Reviews, 22(3), 267-293. Fernndez, J.E., De Cea, J., De Grange, L. (2005). Production costs, congestion, scope and scale economies in urban bus transportation corridors. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(5), 383-403. Fernndez, R., Zegers, P.,Weber, G. (2009). Laboratory evidence of platform height, door width and fare collection on bus boarding and alighting times. Transportation and Logistic Workshop. Reaca, Chile.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

M. Medina-Tapia, R. Giesen and J.C. Muoz

20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

Fernndez, R., Zegers, P., Weber, G., Figueroa, A., Tyler, N. (2010). Platform height, door width and fare collection on public transport dwell time: A laboratory study. XVI Congreso Panamericano de Ingeniera de Trnsito y Transporte y Logstica. Lisboa, Portugal. Fitzpatrick K., Perkinson D., Hall K. (1997). Findings from a survey on bus stop design. Journal of Public Transportation, 1(3), 1727. Gibson, J. y Fernndez, R. (1995). Recomendaciones para el diseo de paraderos de buses de alta capacidad. Apuntes de Ingeniera, 18(1), 35-50. Hurdle, V. (1973). Minimum Cost Locations for Parallel Public Transit Lines. Transportation Science, 7(4), 340-350. Jara-Daz, S., Gschwender, A. (2009). The effect of financial constraints on the optimal design of public transport services. Transportation, 36, 6575. Kocur, G. y Hendrickson, C. (1982). Design of Local Bus Service with Demand Equilibration. Transportation Science, 16(2), 149-170. Kuah, G. y Perl, J. (1988). Optimization of Feeder Bus Routes and Bus-Stop Spacing. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 114(3), 341-354. Laporte G, Mesa J, Ortega F. (2002). Locating stations on rapid transit lines. Computers & Operations Research, 29, 741-759. Laporte G., Mesa J., Ortega F., Perea F. (2011). Planning rapid transit networks. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 45(3), 95104. Murray A. (2003). A Coverage Model for Improving Public Transit System Accessibility and Expanding Access. Annals of Operations Research, 123, 143156. Murray, A. and Wu, X. (2003). Accessibility tradeoffs in public transit planning. Journal of Geographical Systems, 5, 93107. Raveau, S. (2009). Estimacin simultnea de Modelos de Eleccin Discreta con Variables Latentes. Memoria de ttulo de Ingeniero Civil de Industrias, Pontificia Universidad Catlica de Chile, Santiago, Chile. Raveau, S., Delgado, F., Muoz, J.C., Giesen, R. (2010). Aproximacin continua al fenmeno de apelotonamiento de buses. XVI Congreso Panamericano de Ingeniera de Trnsito y Transporte y Logstica. Lisboa, Portugal. Saka, A. (2001). Model for Determining Optimum Bus-Stop Spacing in Urban Areas. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 127(3), 195-199. SECTRA (2002). Anlisis y Asistencia Tcnica Programa BIRF 3028-CH, Sectra, VIII Etapa. Estudio de la Secretara de Planificacin de Transporte, Chile. SECTRA (2003) Anlisis modernizacin de Transporte Pblico, VI Etapa. Estructura de costos Transporte Pblico. Estudio de la Secretara de Planificacin de Transporte, Chile. Vuchic, V. (2005). Operations, Planning and Economics. New Jersey, EE.UU.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Vuchic, V. (2007). Urban Transit Systems and Technology. New Jersey, EE.UU.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Wirasinghe, S. y Ghoneim N. (1981). Spacing of Bus-Stops for Many to Many Travel Demand. Transportation Science, 15(3), 210-221.

TRB 2013 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.