Abstract

The proven benefits of limited-stop services have captured the attention of researchers, especially during the last decade. However, to solve the limited-stop service design problem many existing works directly impose a capacity constraint to a total social cost objective function. This "naive approach" implicitly assumes that passengers behave altruistically, basing their decisions on what is best for the whole system. Although this issue has been identified in earlier works, the magnitude of the error induced by this simplification has not been studied yet. The objective of this work is to measure this error and to understand how it misrepresents passenger flows and bus occupation rates. To measure this error gap, we optimize a set of test scenarios by applying a naive approach, and then take the resulting design and obtain a benchmark passenger assignment using a simple behavioral model. We propose two main indicators to compare both passenger assignment: the total passenger deviation, and the total capacity deficit. This comparison reveals that the assignment of the naive approach may indeed be unrealistic, and raises concerns that a network design based on the naive approach might have severe problems when implemented. Thus, the work highlights the importance of taking the results of the naive approach with caution and verify them with a passenger assignment model before their implementation.