IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i10p4117-d359546.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Agent-Based Simulation Approach for Evaluating the Performance of On-Demand Bus Services

Author

Listed:
  • Sohani Liyanage

    (Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn 3122, Australia)

  • Hussein Dia

    (Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn 3122, Australia)

Abstract

On-demand multi-passenger shared transport options are increasingly being promoted as an influential strategy to reduce traffic congestion and emissions and improve the convenience and travel experience for passengers. These services, often referred to as on-demand public transport, are aimed at meeting personal travel demands through the use of shared vehicles that run on flexible routes using advanced tools for dynamic scheduling. This paper presents an agent-based traffic simulation model that was developed to evaluate the performance of on-demand public transport and compare it with existing scheduled bus services using a case study of the inner city of Melbourne in Australia. The key performance measures used in the comparative evaluation included quality of service and passenger experience in terms of waiting times, the efficiency of service and operations in terms of hourly vehicle utilization, and system efficiency in terms of trip completion rates, passenger kilometers travelled and total passenger trip times. The results showed significant benefits for passengers who use on-demand bus services compared to scheduled bus services. The on-demand bus service was found to reduce average total passenger waiting times by 89% during the Morning Peak; by 78% during the Mid-Day period; by 81% during the Afternoon Peak; and by more than 95% during other periods of the day. From an operator’s perspective, the on-demand services were found to achieve around 70% vehicle utilization rates during peak hours compared to a utilization rate not exceeding 16% for the scheduled bus services. Even during off-peak periods, the occupancies for on-demand services were almost twice the vehicle occupancies for scheduled bus services. In terms of system efficiency, the on-demand services achieved a trip completion rate of 85% compared to a trip completion rate of 67% for the scheduled bus services. The total passenger-kilometers travelled was similar for both scheduled and on-demand bus services, which refutes claims that on-demand bus services induce more kilometers of travel. The trip completion times were around 55% shorter for on-demand bus services compared to scheduled services, which represents a significant saving in travel time for users. Finally, the paper presents average emissions per completed trip for both types of services and shows a significant reduction in emissions for on-demand services compared to conventional bus services. These include, on average, a 48% reduction in CO 2 emissions per trip; 82% reduction in NO emissions per trip; and 41% reduction in p.m.10 emissions per trip. These findings clearly demonstrate the superior benefits of on-demand bus services compared to scheduled bus services.

Suggested Citation

  • Sohani Liyanage & Hussein Dia, 2020. "An Agent-Based Simulation Approach for Evaluating the Performance of On-Demand Bus Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-20, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:4117-:d:359546
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4117/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/10/4117/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ioannis Bellos & Mark Ferguson & L. Beril Toktay, 2017. "The Car Sharing Economy: Interaction of Business Model Choice and Product Line Design," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 185-201, May.
    2. Namazu, Michiko & Dowlatabadi, Hadi, 2018. "Vehicle ownership reduction: A comparison of one-way and two-way carsharing systems," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 38-50.
    3. Dowling, Robyn & Kent, Jennifer, 2015. "Practice and public–private partnerships in sustainable transport governance: The case of car sharing in Sydney, Australia," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 58-64.
    4. Shaheen, Susan & Cohen, Adam & Zohdy, Ismail & Kock, Beaudry, 2016. "Smartphone Applications to Influence Travel Choices: Practices and Policies," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt8dq801g7, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    5. Greenblatt, Jeffery & Shaheen, Susan PhD, 2015. "Automated Vehicles, On-Demand Mobility and Environmental Impacts," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt23r1h80t, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    6. Nelson, John D. & Wright, Steve & Masson, Brian & Ambrosino, Giorgio & Naniopoulos, Aristotelis, 2010. "Recent developments in Flexible Transport Services," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 243-248.
    7. Martin, Elliot W & Shaheen, Susan A, 2011. "Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Carsharing in North America," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt6wr90040, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    8. Cláudia A. Soares Machado & Nicolas Patrick Marie De Salles Hue & Fernando Tobal Berssaneti & José Alberto Quintanilha, 2018. "An Overview of Shared Mobility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    9. Dia, Hussein, 2001. "An object-oriented neural network approach to short-term traffic forecasting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(2), pages 253-261, June.
    10. Sohani Liyanage & Hussein Dia & Rusul Abduljabbar & Saeed Asadi Bagloee, 2019. "Flexible Mobility On-Demand: An Environmental Scan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-39, February.
    11. Mulley, Corinne & Nelson, John D., 2009. "Flexible transport services: A new market opportunity for public transport," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 39-45.
    12. Shaheen, Susan A & Cohen, Adam P, 2007. "Growth in Worldwide Carsharing: An International Comparison," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt2zv240pp, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Phattarasuda Witchayaphong & Surachet Pravinvongvuth & Kunnawee Kanitpong & Kazushi Sano & Suksun Horpibulsuk, 2020. "Influential Factors Affecting Travelers’ Mode Choice Behavior on Mass Transit in Bangkok, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Chinnawat Hoonsiri & Siriluk Chiarakorn & Vasin Kiattikomol, 2021. "Using Combined Bus Rapid Transit and Buses in a Dedicated Bus Lane to Enhance Urban Transportation Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sohani Liyanage & Hussein Dia & Rusul Abduljabbar & Saeed Asadi Bagloee, 2019. "Flexible Mobility On-Demand: An Environmental Scan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-39, February.
    2. Golalikhani, Masoud & Oliveira, Beatriz Brito & Carravilla, Maria Antónia & Oliveira, José Fernando & Antunes, António Pais, 2021. "Carsharing: A review of academic literature and business practices toward an integrated decision-support framework," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    3. Shaheen, Susan PhD & Cohen, Adam & Farrar, Emily, 2019. "Carsharing's Impact and Future," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt2f5896tp, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    4. Xiaowei Chen & Hongyu Zheng & Ze Wang & Xiqun Chen, 2021. "Exploring impacts of on-demand ridesplitting on mobility via real-world ridesourcing data and questionnaires," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1541-1561, August.
    5. Ana María Arbeláez Vélez & Andrius Plepys, 2021. "Car Sharing as a Strategy to Address GHG Emissions in the Transport System: Evaluation of Effects of Car Sharing in Amsterdam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Pierpaolo D’Urso & Alessio Guandalini & Francesca Romana Mallamaci & Vincenzina Vitale & Laura Bocci, 2021. "To Share or not to Share? Determinants of Sharing Mobility in Italy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 647-692, April.
    7. Jokinen, Jani-Pekka & Sihvola, Teemu & Mladenovic, Milos N., 2019. "Policy lessons from the flexible transport service pilot Kutsuplus in the Helsinki Capital Region," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 123-133.
    8. Philipp Ströhle & Christoph M. Flath & Johannes Gärttner, 2019. "Leveraging Customer Flexibility for Car-Sharing Fleet Optimization," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 42-61, February.
    9. Susan Shaheen & Nelson Chan & Helen Micheaux, 2015. "One-way carsharing’s evolution and operator perspectives from the Americas," Transportation, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 519-536, May.
    10. Mariana de Oliveira Lage & Cláudia Aparecida Soares Machado & Cristiano Martins Monteiro & Clodoveu Augusto Davis & Charles Lincoln Kenji Yamamura & Fernando Tobal Berssaneti & José Alberto Quintanilh, 2021. "Using Hierarchical Facility Location, Single Facility Approach, and GIS in Carsharing Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-13, November.
    11. Diana, Marco & Chicco, Andrea, 2022. "The spatial reconfiguration of parking demand due to car sharing diffusion: a simulated scenario for the cities of Milan and Turin (Italy)," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    12. Liu, Zhiyong & Li, Ruimin & Dai, Jingchen, 2022. "Effects and feasibility of shared mobility with shared autonomous vehicles: An investigation based on data-driven modeling approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 206-226.
    13. Dikas, G. & Minis, I., 2014. "Scheduled paratransit transport systems," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 18-34.
    14. Irfan Ullah & Kai Liu & Tran Vanduy, 2019. "Examining Travelers’ Acceptance towards Car Sharing Systems—Peshawar City, Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-16, February.
    15. Yun Wang & Xuedong Yan & Yu Zhou & Qingwan Xue & Li Sun, 2017. "Individuals’ Acceptance to Free-Floating Electric Carsharing Mode: A Web-Based Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-24, May.
    16. Kent, Jennifer & Dowling, Robyn & Maalsen, Sophia, 2017. "Catalysts for transport transitions: Bridging the gap between disruptions and change," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 200-207.
    17. Junhee Kang & Keeyeon Hwang & Sungjin Park, 2016. "Finding Factors that Influence Carsharing Usage: Case Study in Seoul," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-12, July.
    18. Sweet, Matthias N. & Scott, Darren M., 2021. "Shared mobility adoption from 2016 to 2018 in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area: Demographic or geographic diffusion?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    19. Tomasz Kwarcinski, 2020. "Transport on Demand in the Opinion of Users: A Case Study for Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 1), pages 462-475.
    20. María Ampudia-Renuncio & Begoña Guirao & Rafael Molina-Sanchez & Luís Bragança, 2020. "Electric Free-Floating Carsharing for Sustainable Cities: Characterization of Frequent Trip Profiles Using Acquired Rental Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:10:p:4117-:d:359546. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.