Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 30 references

Autonomous Minibus Service with Semi-on-demand Routes in Grid Networks

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Replacing the suburban leg of a fixed bus route with an on-demand minibus lowers generalized cost whenever a Selection Indicator is below 1; simulations and Chicago cases give median hourly savings of $51–$197.

desk verdict Useful screening indicators for semi-on-demand minibus routes, but Assumption A2 (same fleet and headway) is infeasible and the claimed savings are not robust. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.00219 v1 pith:BBOWRTNE submitted 2024-12-31 eess.SY cs.SYmath.OC

Max T.M. Ng , Hani S. Mahmassani This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.SYcs.SYmath.OC
keywords demandresponsivetransitautonomousbuson-demandsharedvehicleminibussemi-on-demandroutesgeneralizedcostgridnetworkrouteconversion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that in low-density suburban corridors feeding a downtown, an autonomous minibus that detours to pick up passengers on demand rather than serving only fixed stops can replace the suburban portion of a fixed bus route at lower total generalized cost. The cost comparison is built from access, waiting, riding, and operator costs on a grid network, and the deciding condition is a single ratio, the Selection Indicator: when $SI<1$ (Eq. 34), the access-time savings outweigh the extra detour, waiting, and operator costs. The authors extend the service to zonal express and parallel routes to widen the scenarios where it wins. If the claim holds, transit agencies would have a simple, data-ready rule for choosing which existing routes to convert, with reported Chicago case studies suggesting median savings on the order of $1–$2.5 per passenger.

What carries the argument

The central object is the mean absolute difference of passenger side-to-side positions, $MD(Y)=\mathbb{E}|Y_i-Y_j|$, which in Eq. (3) evaluates to $(b-a)/3$ for uniform demand on an interval of width $b-a$ and to $2\sigma/\sqrt{\pi}$ for normal demand. This single number converts the spatial spread of demand into the expected perpendicular distance the minibus must travel to connect consecutive request points, so it controls the extra riding time, operator distance, and waiting-time variance in the cost equations. Around it, the paper builds a standard generalized-cost decomposition (access plus waiting plus riding plus operator cost) and derives the hourly cost difference $\Delta TC$ (Eq. 33), the Selection Indicator $SI$ (Eq. 34), the parallel-route indicator $SI^*$ (Eq. 37), and the optimal number of zones $n^*$ for zonal express (Eq. 30).

What would settle it

A direct test is to recompute the cost comparison without the equal-headway assumption: for one of the modeled corridors, set the minibus departure interval equal to the fixed-route interval plus the extra round-trip time caused by sideways detours and pick-up stops, then re-evaluate the hourly generalized-cost difference. If the difference becomes positive for the Chicago #126 or #84 parameter settings, the paper's central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a condition under which the semi-on-demand autonomous minibus service (AMSoD) dominates a fixed-route bus on a directional suburb-to-CBD corridor. Passengers in the suburb are picked up at request points, so access cost drops to zero; the bus pays for this with side-to-side detours, extra dwell time, and the randomness those add to waiting time. The total hourly cost difference $\Delta TC$ in Eq. (33) is negative, meaning AMSoD wins, exactly when the access-cost saving $\gamma_a VOT \lambda \overline{s_a}$ exceeds the sum of the added waiting, riding, and operator costs. Eq. (34) packages that trade-off as $SI<1$, where $SI$ is the ratio of added costs per unit of access-time saving. Simulations and two Chicago bus-route case studies give median hourly differences of $-51$, $-154$, $-197$, and $-99$ in favor of AMSoD, with $SI$ values $0.80$, $0.97$, $0.75$, and $0.91$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the assumption that the on-demand minibuses keep the same number of vehicles and the same time gap between departures as the fixed route, even though their detours and extra pick-up stops make each round trip longer; if the gap has to widen or extra vehicles have to be added, the extra waiting or fleet cost could erase the access-time savings.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Agencies can screen their fixed-route network by computing the Selection Indicator for each corridor; routes with $SI<1$ are candidates for AMSoD conversion without running a full simulation.
  • The service is a low-density, off-peak tool: the paper derives an upper bound on the demand-headway product $\lambda H$ in Eq. (35), so fixed routes retain the advantage once that product exceeds the bound.
  • For corridors with wide sideways demand spread, splitting service into two parallel AMSoD routes restores the advantage, with its own condition $SI^*<1$ in Eq. (37).
  • For busier corridors, zonal express—assigning each minibus to one of $n$ zones and letting it skip other zones—can be optimal; the optimal zone count $n^*$ in Eq. (30) grows with operator cost and the highway-speed advantage.
  • The reported Chicago cases put median savings at about $0.9–$2.5 per passenger, but the 95% confidence intervals include positive differences in several scenarios, so the benefit is not uniform across demand draws.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension the authors do not pursue is to re-derive the Selection Indicator under an endogenous headway: if the fleet is fixed, the extra cycle time from detours should feed back into the departure interval, changing $SI$ and likely shrinking the set of routes where AMSoD wins.
  • The same machinery could be used as a monitoring rule once AMSoD is running: using realized request locations instead of an assumed uniform distribution, an operator could recompute $MD(Y)$ and $SI$ continuously and switch routes back to fixed service when $SI$ crosses 1.
  • Because the model assumes demand patterns stay the same, induced demand from shorter access is a blind spot; a testable extension is to couple $SI$ with a ridership-elasticity model and see whether conversion creates enough new riders to push a route past the favorable threshold.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces an Autonomous Minibus Semi-on-Demand (AMSoD) service that combines fixed-route downtown segments with on-demand, dynamically routed suburbs in a grid network. The authors derive closed-form generalized cost expressions for fixed-route and AMSoD services, including access, waiting, riding, and operator costs, and propose a Selection Indicator (SI) to identify existing bus routes suitable for conversion. They extend the formulation to zonal express and parallel-route configurations. The analytical results are supported by Monte Carlo simulation and two Chicago Transit Authority bus route case studies. The paper is clearly structured and provides a transparent cost framework, but the central comparison rests on an assumption of equal headway and fleet size that is not internally consistent.

Significance. The paper addresses an important and timely problem: whether and when autonomous on-demand minibuses can reduce generalized cost in low-density suburban corridors. The cost model is derived from first principles, and the SI indicator offers a practical, parameterized screening tool for transit planners. The authors are transparent about their assumptions and list nine limitations. However, the physical inconsistency of Assumption A2 (same fleet size and headway despite longer cycle time) and the wide confidence intervals in the case studies currently prevent acceptance of the empirical claims. If the authors can remedy the A2 issue, the framework could be a valuable contribution to the flexible transit literature.

major comments (2)
  1. [Service Description, Assumption A2; Eqs. (21), (23), (26)-(27); Table 4; Limitation 7] Assumption A2 fixes the number of minibuses and departure headway to those of the fixed route. This pair is not jointly feasible when the AMSoD cycle time is longer: Eq. (23) adds y-directional travel (K/2 MD(Y)/v_b) and pick-up dwell time (t_d' K/2) to each trip. With a fixed headway H, the required fleet size grows; with a fixed fleet, the realized headway grows. Neither consequence appears in the cost model. Eq. (27) charges the operator only for distance (γ_d [Lx/H + λ MD(Y)]) and Eq. (21) keeps the deterministic waiting term H/2 unchanged. The Monte Carlo simulation dispatches vehicles at the same H without enforcing a return-availability constraint, so it inherits the same bias; the Selection Indicator in Eq. (34) is constructed from Eq. (33) and inherits it as well. Notably, Limitation 7 acknowledges that 'more or fewer minibuses may be needed' but does not quantify the effect. Because the margins in Table 4 are small (three of the four ΔTC confidence intervals include zero), this omitted cost could plausibly change the sign of the result. The authors should re-run the analytical and simulation comparisons under a consistent fleet-size constraint, either by including the capital/operating cost of the additional vehicles needed to maintain headway or by recomputing the effective headway for a fixed fleet.
  2. [Table 4; Abstract; Conclusion] The abstract and conclusions state that simulations and case studies 'show reductions' in generalized costs, but the 95% confidence intervals in Table 4 include zero for Model 1 (-134 to 67), Model 2 (-312 to 43), and CTA #84 (-193 to 38); only CTA #126 (-299 to -67) is significant at the 5% level. The empirical support is therefore weaker than claimed. The authors should either report the proportion of simulated repetitions with negative ΔTC, or qualify the statements by explicitly noting that the case-study differences are not statistically significant for three of the four configurations. The analytical derivations may still support the concept, but the case studies should be presented as illustrative rather than confirmatory.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (34)] Equation (34), the Selection Indicator, is hard to parse in the typeset manuscript; please display it with a clear fraction bar and explicit multiplication signs, since it is a central result.
  2. [Table 2] Some notation in Table 2 (e.g., the bar over s_w in the waiting-time row) is garbled; please ensure all symbols and accents render correctly in the final version.
  3. [Expected Waiting Time, Riding Time, and Total Costs] In the derivation of the waiting-cost difference leading to Eq. (32), the paper uses Eq. (21) with a headway-variance term but then effectively sets the fixed-route variance to zero. Please clarify that the fixed-route headway variance is assumed to be zero (or that it cancels because both services share the same H and σ_H²).
  4. [Simulation] The Monte Carlo simulation parameters are given, but the code and data are not. Providing a public repository or, at minimum, the synthetic demand generator would improve reproducibility and allow readers to test the fleet-size constraint directly.
  5. [Introduction, Figure 2] Figure 2 is referenced without an accompanying explanation in the text; a sentence describing how the proposed service is positioned relative to fixed-route bus and shared autonomous vehicles would aid readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cost-difference equations are derived from stated assumptions, and the Chicago case studies use external CTA data; simulation agreement with the analytic criteria is a self-consistency check, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Eqs. (5)-(27) define generalized costs from explicitly stated components (access, waiting, riding, operator costs), and Eqs. (32)-(34) are algebraic combinations of those components with no parameter fitted to the conclusion. The Selection Indicator SI is, by construction, the ratio of the incremental AMSoD costs to the access-cost saving, so SI<1 is algebraically equivalent to ΔTC<0; this is a definitional identity within the derivation, not a prediction smuggled in as an independent result. The Chicago case studies use external CTA boarding and schedule data, so those empirical inputs are not derived from the paper's own claims. The Monte Carlo simulation implements the same service rules and cost definitions as the analytical model, meaning its agreement with SI is a self-consistency check rather than independent validation; however, self-consistency is not circularity because the analytical results stand on the stated assumptions without requiring the simulation outcome. The only load-bearing assumption with a consistency concern is Assumption A2, which fixes the minibus fleet and headway equal to the fixed-route values; this is a physical feasibility limitation (the AMSoD cycle time is longer), but it is not a circular reduction of the claimed result to its inputs. Limitation 7 explicitly acknowledges that more or fewer minibuses may be required, which further shows the issue is a modeling limitation rather than a concealed assumption of the conclusion. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and the only co-authored citation in the literature review (Pinto et al. 2020) is contextual and not load-bearing. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary standard of this review.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 10 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The quantitative claims rest on a hand-calibrated generalized-cost model. No free parameter is fitted to the outcome data, but the chosen values and assumptions do most of the work: A2 fixes headway and fleet, A4 removes access cost, and uniform demand fixes MD(Y). The paper itself lists several of these as conservative limitations, which is accurate; they generally favor AMSoD.

free parameters (9)
  • Value of time (VOT) = $16.5/hour
    Scales every passenger cost term and therefore the sign of the cost difference; taken from DOT guidance as 50% of median income.
  • Access time penalty gamma_a = 2
    Weights the access-cost saving, which is the main benefit of AMSoD; higher values make the service look better.
  • Waiting time penalty gamma_w = 1.5
    Weights the waiting-cost increase caused by detours and headway variance.
  • Operator unit distance cost gamma_o = $1/km
    Hand-set from prior studies; appears in operator cost and in the demand bound in Eq. (35).
  • Bus speed v_b = 35 km/h in models, 30 km/h in CTA cases
    Controls detour time and riding time; lower speeds penalize AMSoD more heavily.
  • Walking speed v_w = 4 km/h
    Sets maximum access time and converts access distance to time, directly affecting the access-cost saving.
  • Headway H and demand rate lambda = H=15 or 20 minutes; lambda=50, 60, or 80 passengers/hour
    Scenario inputs; the product lambda*H is the expected number of passengers per departure and is the key variable in all selection indicators.
  • Coverage width GL_y and grid cell sizes = GL_y=0.53 or 2 km; Lx=0.2 km, Ly=0.1 km
    Uniform demand within this width sets MD(Y) and therefore the y-direction detour cost.
  • Stop spacing and dwell time = 400 m spacing; 0.4 or 0.33 min dwell
    From transit guidelines; the higher stop density in CTA #126 creates a dwell-time saving that helps AMSoD.
assumptions (10)
  • domain assumption A1: Passenger costs under AMSoD are lower than or equal to fixed routes, so demand patterns remain the same.
    This removes induced demand from the comparison; the paper later acknowledges that induced demand is possible and would raise detours.
  • ad hoc to paper A2: The number of minibuses assigned and departure headways are the same as those of fixed routes.
    Because AMSoD trips add y-detours and stop time, their cycle time is longer; holding both fleet size and headway fixed is infeasible and biases the cost comparison.
  • domain assumption A3: All demand is within vehicle capacity.
    Unserved passengers are carried by the next trip in simulation; with the tested capacities this is a minor effect.
  • domain assumption A4: Passengers request service and choose desirable pick-up and drop-off points, so access cost is zero.
    Equation (15) sets C'_a=0; this is the principal source of savings and may overstate benefits if passengers still walk to request points.
  • domain assumption A5: Passengers are ready for pick-up before the bus arrives.
    No missed pickups or no-show dynamics are modeled.
  • domain assumption A6: The suburban service area is a grid network.
    All detour formulas use grid geometry and rectangular coverage; the authors note other network types require further research.
  • domain assumption A7: Buses do not wait or travel backward more than one block for pick-ups and drop-offs.
    This routing rule constrains detours and is conservative relative to optimal routing; it is applied in the simulation.
  • domain assumption Demand is uniformly distributed across the coverage area and symmetric in the y-direction.
    Used to compute MD(Y) in Eq. (3) and to generate demand in Eqs. (39)-(41); the authors call this conservative but it is unverified.
  • standard math Passenger arrivals are Poisson, so expected waiting time is H/2 plus a variance correction.
    Standard queuing result used in Eq. (21); it underpins all waiting-cost estimates.
  • standard math Generalized cost equals the sum of access, waiting, riding, and operator costs, following Newell (26).
    This decomposition is the basis of Eqs. (5) and (14), inherited from prior literature.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Autonomous Minibus Service with Semi-on-demand Routes in Grid Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BBOWRTNE

@misc{pith2026250100219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Autonomous Minibus Service with Semi-on-demand Routes in Grid Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BBOWRTNE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.00219}
}
read the original abstract

This paper investigates the potential of autonomous minibuses which take on-demand directional routes for pick-up and drop-off in a grid network of wider area with low density, followed by fixed routes in areas with demand. Mathematical formulation for generalized costs demonstrates its benefits, with indicators proposed to select existing bus routes for conversion with the options of zonal express and parallel routes. Simulations on modeled scenarios and case studies with bus routes in Chicago show reductions in both passenger costs and generalized costs over existing fixed-route bus service between suburban areas and CBD.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ng Graduate Research Assistant Transportation Center Northwestern University 600 Foster Street Evanston, IL 60208, USA Email: maxng@u.northwestern.edu Hani S

    Ng, Mahmassani Autonomous Minibus Service with Semi-on-demand Routes in Grid Networks Max T.M. Ng Graduate Research Assistant Transportation Center Northwestern University 600 Foster Street Evanston, IL 60208, USA Email: maxng@u.northwestern.edu Hani S. Mahmassani William A. Patterson Distinguished Chair in Transportation Director, Transportation Center N...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Errico, F., T. G. Crainic, F. Malucelli, and M. Nonato. A Survey on Planning Semi-Flexible Transit Systems: Methodological Issues and a Unifying Framework. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 36, 2013, pp. 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2013.08.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trc.2013.08.010 2013

  3. [3]

    Errico, F., T. G. Crainic, F. Malucelli, and M. Nonato. The Single-Line Design Problem for Demand-Adaptive Transit Systems: A Modeling Framework and Decomposition Approach Ng, Mahmassani 36 for the Stationary-Demand Case. Transportation Science, Vol. 55, No. 6, 2021, pp. 1300–1321. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.2021.1062

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    E., and R

    Cortés, C. E., and R. Jayakrishnan. Design and Operational Concepts of High-Coverage Point-to-Point Transit System. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1783, No. 1, 2002, pp. 178–187. https://doi.org/10.3141/1783-22

    work page doi:10.3141/1783-22 2002

  5. [5]

    𝐾%𝑠"&____+𝛾!𝐾%2𝐻rc𝑀𝐷(𝑌)𝑣/d5𝐾%5+6𝐾%+212+𝐾%2𝑡-(5s+𝛾#𝐾%5𝑀𝐷(𝑌)2𝑣/s+𝛾$𝐾%𝑀𝐷(𝑌) (32) ΔTC≈𝑉𝑂𝑇𝐻r−𝛾

    similar to traditional zonal express. By the assumptions of symmetric demand spatial distribution, insignificant additional waiting time incurred by headway variance, and higher highway speed outside grids, Eq. (28) is the total hourly generalized costs of the whole service region. The waiting cost increases due to greater headway for each zone using the ...

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    M., and Y

    Nourbakhsh, S. M., and Y. Ouyang. A Structured Flexible Transit System for Low Demand Areas. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2012, pp. 204–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2011.07.014

    doi:10.1016/j.trb.2011.07.014 2012

  7. [7]

    Daganzo, C. F. Structure of Competitive Transit Networks. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2010, pp. 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2009.11.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.trb.2009.11.001 2010

  8. [8]

    R., and H

    Sayarshad, H. R., and H. O. Gao. Optimizing Dynamic Switching between Fixed and Flexible Transit Services with an Idle-Vehicle Relocation Strategy and Reductions in Emissions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 135, 2020, pp. 198–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.006

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.006 2020

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    W., and Y

    Chen, P. W., and Y. M. Nie. Analysis of an Idealized System of Demand Adaptive Paired-Line Hybrid Transit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 102, 2017, pp. 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2017.05.004

    2017 doi

  2. [10]

    Araldo, S

    Calabrò, G., A. Araldo, S. Oh, R. Seshadri, G. Inturri, and M. Ben-Akiva. Integrating Fixed and Demand-Responsive Transportation for Flexible Transit Network Design. Presented at the TRB 2021: 100th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,

    2021

  3. [11]

    Chaniotakis, and C

    Narayanan, S., E. Chaniotakis, and C. Antoniou. Shared Autonomous Vehicle Services: A Comprehensive Review. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 111, 2020, pp. 255–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.12.008

    2020 doi

  4. [12]

    Samaranayake, A

    Alonso-Mora, J., S. Samaranayake, A. Wallar, E. Frazzoli, and D. Rus. On-Demand High-Capacity Ride-Sharing via Dynamic Trip-Vehicle Assignment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 114, No. 3, 2017, pp. 462–467. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611675114

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Pinto, H. K. R. F., M. F. Hyland, H. S. Mahmassani, and I. Ö. Verbas. Joint Design of Multimodal Transit Networks and Shared Autonomous Mobility Fleets. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 113, 2020, pp. 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.06.010

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    Winter, K., O. Cats, G. Correia, and B. van Arem. Performance Analysis and Fleet Requirements of Automated Demand-Responsive Transport Systems as an Urban Public Transport Service. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2018, pp. 151–167...

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    Dai, Z., X. C. Liu, X. Chen, and X. Ma. Joint Optimization of Scheduling and Capacity for Mixed Traffic with Autonomous and Human-Driven Buses: A Dynamic Programming Ng, Mahmassani 37 Approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 114, 2020, pp. 598–619....

    2020 doi

  8. [16]

    (Avi) Ceder

    Cao, Z., and A. (Avi) Ceder. Autonomous Shuttle Bus Service Timetabling and Vehicle Scheduling Using Skip-Stop Tactic. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 102, 2019, pp. 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.03.018

    2019 doi

  9. [17]

    Zhai, Z., Y. Yang, Y. Shen, Y. Ji, and Y. Du. Assessing the Impacts of Autonomous Bus-on-Demand Based on Agent-Based Simulation: A Case Study of Fuyang, Zhejiang, China. Journal of Advanced Transportation. Volume 2020, e7981791. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jat/2020/798179...

    2020

  10. [18]

    O., and N

    Salonen, A. O., and N. Haavisto. Towards Autonomous Transportation. Passengers’ Experiences, Perceptions and Feelings in a Driverless Shuttle Bus in Finland. Sustainability, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2019, p

    2019

  11. [19]

    Bösch, P. M., F. Becker, H. Becker, and K. W. Axhausen. Cost-Based Analysis of Autonomous Mobility Services. Transport Policy, Vol. 64, 2018, pp. 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2017.09.005

    2018 doi

  12. [20]

    Araldo, A

    Basu, R., A. Araldo, A. P. Akkinepally, B. H. Nahmias Biran, K. Basak, R. Seshadri, N. Deshmukh, N. Kumar, C. L. Azevedo, and M. Ben-Akiva. Automated Mobility-on-Demand vs. Mass Transit: A Multi-Modal Activity-Driven Agent-Based Simulation Approach. Transportation Research Rec...

    2018 doi

  13. [21]

    Oberfeld, C

    Bernhard, C., D. Oberfeld, C. Hoffmann, D. Weismüller, and H. Hecht. User Acceptance of Automated Public Transport: Valence of an Autonomous Minibus Experience. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 70, 2020, pp. 109–123. https://doi.org/10.101...

    2020 doi

  14. [22]

    Alauzet, and L

    Pigeon, C., A. Alauzet, and L. Paire-Ficout. Factors of Acceptability, Acceptance and Usage for Non-Rail Autonomous Public Transport Vehicles: A Systematic Literature Review. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 81, 2021, pp. 251–270. https://...

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Zhang, J., D. Z. W. Wang, and M. Meng. Which Service Is Better on a Linear Travel Corridor: Park & Ride or on-Demand Public Bus? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 118, 2018, pp. 803–818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.10.003

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    Jara-Díaz, and C

    Gschwender, A., S. Jara-Díaz, and C. Bravo. Feeder-Trunk or Direct Lines? Economies of Density, Transfer Costs and Transit Structure in an Urban Context. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 88, 2016, pp. 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.03.001

    2016 doi

  17. [25]

    (Carol), L

    Tong, L. (Carol), L. Zhou, J. Liu, and X. Zhou. Customized Bus Service Design for Jointly Optimizing Passenger-to-Vehicle Assignment and Vehicle Routing. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 85, 2017, pp. 451–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.09.022

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    Edwards, D., and K. Watkins. Comparing Fixed-Route and Demand-Responsive Feeder Transit Systems in Real-World Settings. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2352, 2013, pp. 128–135. https://doi.org/10.3141/2352-15

    2013 doi

  19. [27]

    Public Transport Values of Time

    Wardman, M. Public Transport Values of Time. Transport Policy, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2004, pp. 363–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2004.05.001

    2004 doi

  20. [28]

    Newell, G. F. Some Issues Relating to the Optimal Design of Bus Routes. Transportation Science, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1979, pp. 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.13.1.20. Ng, Mahmassani 38

    1979 doi

  21. [29]

    The Value of Travel Time Savings: Departmental Guidance for Conducting Economic Evaluations Revision 2 (2016 Update)

    US Department of Transportation. The Value of Travel Time Savings: Departmental Guidance for Conducting Economic Evaluations Revision 2 (2016 Update). https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-valuation-travel-time-economi...

    2016

  22. [588]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/su11030588

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.