Abstract
Flex-route transit service is now the most popular type of flexible transits to serve low-demand areas. In this paper, we develop a strategy to help transit planners to determine fare policies when the current traditional fixed-route transits turn to a flex-route operating policy. Analytical modeling and simulations are developed to appraise the service quality provided to different groups of passengers under these two operating policies. To be closer to reality, two criterions, defined as Criterion (NRP) and Criterion (RP), are introduced for further analysis based on the processing of the passengers refused by deviation service. Criterion (NRP) represents the scenario that the refused passengers would switch to other means of transportation and not be considered in the calculation of service quality function, and Criterion (RP) means that the refused passengers would walk to nearest checkpoints for expected service vehicle and be considered in the assessment of cost indicators. In various scenarios, where demand responsive requests pay additional money for personal deviation services and regular riders could expect a discounted fare for the imposed delay, optimal fare policies are derived based on the change of service quality after applying flex-route operating policy. Also, it is found that only fares of regular riders are susceptible to the choice between Criterion (NRP) and Criterion (RP).
Highlights
For a long time, traditional public transportation has been devoted to serving residents in dense urban areas, where fixed-route, fixed-schedule mode could be the most efficient and economical choice for transit operations, especially in congested downtowns and central business districts
Demand responsive requests would be likely to be rejected by deviation services if the slack time of flex-route segments is exhausted by previous requests
This paper addresses a problem faced by transit planners in determining fare plans when existing traditional fixed-route transit policy turns to flex-route policy in a given transit system
Summary
Traditional public transportation has been devoted to serving residents in dense urban areas, where fixed-route, fixed-schedule mode could be the most efficient and economical choice for transit operations, especially in congested downtowns and central business districts. Social costs, including external environmental, accident and congestion effects and distributional considerations, were considered in the pricing of urban transport and a general framework for evaluating existing fare subsidies and potential pricing reform had been provided Results from these macroscopic analysis models suggested the base fare in regional transit systems and cannot be used directly to distinguish appropriate fares between regular passengers and demand responsive requests under flex-route operating policy. Compared to traditional fixed-route policy, the most competitive advantage of flex-route policy is the curb-to-curb service provided to customers and riders accepted by deviation services have no walking in their trips, which is preferred especially in extreme conditions, such as unsafe surroundings at night and bad weather These three weights of cost indicators are considered to be sensitive to external operating surroundings, and their values may be changed in different circumstances. In any situation service quality function S can still be regarded as a valid tool to assess service value under both operating policies and it is evident that for each group of passengers, the higher value of function S implies the worse service performance of specific transit policy
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
