Research Article
Fare Optimality Analysis of Urban Rail Transit under Various Objective Functions
Table 2
Optimization results of different models.
| Fare structure | Models |
M1 |
M2 |
M3 | M4 | FF | DBF | FF | DBF | FF | DBF | FF | DBF |
| Fare (¥) | 5.05 | 2.00 + 0.28 | 8.45 | 1.98 + 0.27 | 3.44 | 2.00 + 0.05 | 8.45 | 0.35 | Headway (min) | 5.27 | 5.02 | 11.96 | 5.20 | 3.72 | 3.73 | 11.90 | 5.27 | Demand (103 pass.) | 57.35 | 74.04 | 3.30 | 75.07 | 80.78 | 94.94 | 3.40 | 92.75 | Objective function value (103) | 59.79 | 16.83 | | | 299.34 | 274.62 | 213.26 | 296.83 | Fare rate (¥/pass.-km) | 0.81 | 0.66 | 1.68 | 0.64 | 0.55 | 0.38 | 1.67 | 0.35 | Maximum section demand (103 pass) | 14.34 | 16.52 | 0.72 | 16.85 | 20.25 | 23.30 | 0.75 | 20.50 | Turnover volume (104 pass.-km) | 35.97 | 38.89 | 1.66 | 39.91 | 50.85 | 58.32 | 1.72 | 48.49 | Average riding distance (km) | 6.27 | 5.25 | 5.03 | 5.32 | 6.29 | 6.14 | 5.06 | 5.23 | Maximum passenger density of section (103 pass.-km) | 2.69 | 3.47 | 0.16 | 3.52 | 3.78 | 4.44 | 0.16 | 4.34 | Maximum section load rate (%) | 94.85 | 109.23 | 11.47 | 111.42 | 94.56 | 108.80 | 9.87 | 135.57 |
|
|