Research Article
Application of Modified NSGA-II to the Transit Network Design Problem
Table 9
Operator perspective results compared to other approaches for Mandl’s network.
| |R| | Indicators | Mumford [27] | Chew et al. [32] | John et al. [43] | Kılıç [42] | Ahmed and Lee [36] | Ahmed et al. [38] | NSGA-II with fixed |R| | NSGA-II with variable |R| |
| 4 | d0 (%) | 61.08 | 61.08 | — | 48.81 | 61.08 | — | 56.65 | 47.40 | d1 (%) | 36.61 | 36.61 | — | 45.54 | 36.61 | — | 41.55 | 46.05 | d2 (%) | 2.31 | 2.31 | — | 5.33 | 2.31 | — | 1.80 | 6.55 | dun (%) | 0 | 0 | — | 0.32 | 0 | — | 0 | 0.00 | ATT | 13.88 | 13.88 | — | 14.67 | 13.88 | — | 13.29 | 15.49 | TRL | 63 | 63 | — | 63 | 63 | — | 68 | 65.00 |
| 6 | d0 (%) | 70.91 | 70.91 | — | 70.91 | 70.46 | 62.23 | 63.84 | |R| = 3 | d1 (%) | 25.5 | 25.5 | — | 25.5 | 24.34 | 27.16 | 27.62 | | d2 (%) | 2.95 | 2.95 | — | 2.95 | 5.2 | 9.57 | 8.09 | | dun (%) | 0.64 | 0.64 | — | 0.64 | 0 | 1.03 | 0.45 | | ATT | 13.48 | 13.48 | 13.48 | 13.48 | 12.6 | 14.28 | 14.19 | | TRL | 63 | 63 | 63 | 63 | 63 | 63 | 69 | |
| 7 | d0 (%) | 65.13 | 70.65 | — | 70.65 | 68.96 | — | 57.55 | | d1 (%) | 22.93 | 21.13 | — | 21.13 | 26.29 | — | 33.27 | | d2 (%) | 10.34 | 7.13 | — | 7.13 | 3.92 | — | 8.73 | | dun (%) | 1.61 | 1.09 | — | 1.09 | 0.83 | — | 0.45 | | ATT | 14.25 | 13.76 | — | 13.76 | 13.46 | — | 13.92 | | TRL | 63 | 63 | — | 63 | 63 | — | 71 | |
| 8 | d0 (%) | 57.93 | 61.91 | — | 43.93 | 60.76 | — | 36.48 | | d1 (%) | 31.92 | 29.67 | — | 21.52 | 25.63 | — | 44.32 | | d2 (%) | 9.7 | 6.87 | — | 14.96 | 10.34 | — | 11.11 | | dun (%) | 0.45 | 1.54 | — | 19.59 | 3.26 | — | 8.09 | | ATT | 14.45 | 14.22 | — | 17.95 | 14.78 | — | 15.76 | | TRL | 63 | 63 | — | 63 | 63 | — | 70 | |
|
|