Improving Bus Operations through Integrated Dynamic Holding Control and Schedule Optimization

Table 1

Summary of Recent Dynamic Holding Strategies.

Authors	Approach	Highlight
Fu & Yang [19]	FWL+TWL	The optimal number and location of control points, and the optimal control strength are studied with simulations.
Daganzo [20]	FWL	The method of convolution is introduced to simplify the modeling process.
Daganzo & Pilachowski [21]	TWL	A cruising speed control method is proposed with the two-way-looking control logic.
Bartholdi & Eisenstein [22]	BWL	The proposed holding strategy does not require headway or schedule information.
Xuan et al. [23]	SB	A general holding control model is generated which represents a family of different control methods.
Liang et al. [24]	TWL	A zero-slack version of holding strategy is proposed.
Zhang & Lo [25]	TWL	A self-equalizing holding strategy with two-way-looking control logic is proposed.
Argote-Cabanero et al. [26]	SB	Holding control is generalized into multi bus lines.
Nesheli & Ceder [27]	FWL	Methods like holding control, boarding-limit control, and stop-skipping control are used to synchronize transfers for multi bus lines.
Estrada et al. [28]	TWL	Cruising speed control and signal priority control methods are proposed based on two-way-looking control logic.
Eberlein et al. [14]	—	The optimal location of control stop is analyzed by simulations.
Oort et al. [29]	—	Illustrating how the choice of trip time, location and amount of control stops affect the reliability and efficiency of long-headway bus services.
Zhao et al. [30]	SB	Mathematical analysis is carried out to address the optimization problem of slack time.

Notes: ‘FWL’ stands for ‘Forward-Looking’, ‘BWL’ stands for ‘Backward-looking’, ‘TWL’ stands for ‘Two-way-looking’, and ‘SB’ stands for ‘Schedule-based’.