Journal of Advanced Transportation / 2018 / Article / Tab 1 / Research Article
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’.