See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/265909615

Design and Implementation of Discrete-event Simulation Framework for

Modeling Bus Rapid Transit System

Article in Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology · August 2014
DOI: 10.1016/S1570-6672(13)60139-7

CITATIONS READS

15 433

1 author:

Fergyanto E Gunawan
Binus University
181 PUBLICATIONS 1,237 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Fergyanto E Gunawan on 28 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL OF TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Volume 14, Issue 4, August 2014
Online English edition of the Chinese language journal

Cite this article as: J Transpn Sys Eng & IT, 2014, 14(4), 37−45. RESEARCH PAPER

Design and Implementation of Discrete-event Simulation

Framework for Modeling Bus Rapid Transit System
Fergyanto E. GUNAWAN*
Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta 11480, Indonesia

Abstract: It is clear that bus rapid transit is a strong contender for the solution of massive traffic congestion faced by many cities
across the globe. However, the success or failure of this system will depend on many variables such as service planning,
infrastructure, station design, passenger information systems, and integration and access. In this work, we established a
computational framework on the basis of the discrete-event system for modeling the bus rapid transit system. This particular
development allowed us to cost-effectively evaluate the effects of some of those variables on BRT performance. The results were a
few sub-systems that could directly be used to model a typical BRT system. Some limited numerical trials revealed that the
developed sub-systems could reasonably reproduce phenomena commonly observed in an actual BRT system.

Key words: urban traffic; discrete-event simulation; numerical model; traffic congestion; bus rapid transit

1 Introduction One can use the model to study the service level of the system,
and to evaluate the effectiveness of certain measures, or
This paper elaborates development of a computational
perhaps, to utilize the model to study the impact of the BRT to
framework for modeling bus rapid transit (BRT) on the basis
its environment. For an example, one can extend the structural
of the discrete-event simulation (DES). The BRT system has
equation model of Nugroho et al.[5] to the spatial dimension to
some unique characteristics in comparison to a traditional bus
further understand the spread of the secondary pollutants
system[1]. The developed computational framework is a set of
along a BRT corridor.
sub-systems suitable for modeling the BRT system. Those
sub-systems are built on top of the basic tools existed in a
common DES system. We will explain the detailed
development of each sub-system including their design
decisions and functionalities.
A number of existing facts and earlier studies provide
evidences of the necessity and importance of the present work.
Campo[2] indicated the fast deployment of the BRT-based
transportation system for public transport around the globe. It
is clear, as shown in Fig. 1, that the number of BRT-based
public transportation systems has been rising rapidly. But, the
system, since its inception in the city of Curitiba, Brazil in
1974[3], initially received rather low acceptance. However,
during the last decade, we witnessed a high rate of deployment Fig. 1 The number of BRT-based systems and rail-based systems in
of the system. Some large BRTs are TransMilenio started operation[2]
operating in Dec. 2000, TransJakarta BRT in Jan. 2004, and
Guangzhou BRT in Feb. 2010[4]. In general, the importance of the computational model for
Therefore, establishing a computational model for a BRT transportation system had been realized since long ago, and
system may have many benefits and potential applications. many previous publications had addressed the issue from

Received date: Feb 19, 2013; Revised date: Jun 25, 2013; Accepted date: Jan 28, 2014
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [Link]@[Link]
Copyright © 2013, China Association for Science and Technology. Electronic version published by Elsevier Limited. All rights reserved.
DOI: 10.1016/S1570-6672(13)60139-7
 GUNAWAN Fergyanto E. et al. / J Transpn Sys Eng & IT, 2014, 14(4), 37−45

various aspects[6–13]. For an example, Valiguran et al.[13] Table 1 Modern requirement for bus frequency during peak period[1]
focused on modeling a rail-based transportation system. Visser Service Frequency (minute) Points
et al.[9] utilized a discrete-event simulation to evaluate a <3 4
framework of the intelligent transportation systems. Dos 3–5 3
Santos Silva et al.[12] employed discrete-event simulation and 5–7 2
multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to optimize a fleet of
7–10 1
closed-loop maritime transportation of a steel manufacturing
company. Moreover, Alves et al.[8] utilized a discrete-event
It is clear that the canonical model in Fig. 2 has some
simulation in conjunction with virtual reality for modeling a
necessary sub-systems to model a corridor of BRT system.
logistics system. Finally, Li et al.[7] employed discrete-time
Those sub-systems are the station, the road-segment, the pool
simulation approach to study factors influencing public bus
of buses, the intersection, and the traffic signal. On the
travel efficiency in urban traffic in China.
following, we will discuss the development of each BRT
We compose this paper in the following order. Section 2
sub-system on the basis of Matlab SimEvents blocks.
describes the design of the basic sub-systems required to
2.2 The station sub-system
model a BRT system using DES approach. Each sub-system
BRT station is very critical because transit activity mainly
will be explained in detail including its Matlab SimEventsTM
occurs. The BRT buses have to stop at the station for the
implementation. Then, Section 3 presents demonstrations of
passengers to board and alight, and the station platform should
the use of the developed computational framework. Finally,
be at same level of the bus platform to reduce the passenger
Section 4 summerizes a few interesting findings related to this
transfer-time.
research.
The BRT system is designed so that the boarding and
2 Model developments alighting activities can be performed within a short time. In
comparison to the traditional bus system, the time required by
2.1 Canonical model of bus rapid transit system the BRT buses is significantly shorter. This is achieved by
To develop BRT sub-systems, we firstly reduce the size of a three important design considerations of BRT system:
regular BRT system to a simple model but having all alignment of the station platform and the bus floor, off-vehicle
necessary sub-systems of the actual BRT system. This fare collection, and buses having wide doors[1].
simplest model, which we called the canonical model, is An important feature of BRT station is that the system
depicted in Fig. 2. should be able to accurately capture the dynamics of
passenger arrivals at the station. Fortunately, the issue has
been of interest of many researchers, for examples: O’Flaherty
and Mangan[15], Salek and Machemehl[16], Fan and
Machemehl[17], Luethi et al.[18], Islam and Vandebona[19], and
Gunawan et al.[20]. Some of those literatures had established
the dynamics mathematically.
In general, the existing literatures identified the passenger
dynamics and established the following conceptions. The
Fig. 2 A canonical model of a BRT corridor times of the passenger arrivals inclined to follow, roughly
speaking, two probability distribution functions. They are the
The model in Fig. 2 is a simplified model of a BRT corridor
uniform and log-normal distribution functions, see Fig. 3,
where each bus serveing the corridor departs from the pool at
depending on the bus headway. For a short headway, i.e., less
the scheduled time. The schedule should relatively be high in
than 5 min, the times of arrivals are inclined to follow the
bus frequency particularly during rush-hours (see Table 1).
uniform distribution function, which means that the
Then, the bus goes to Station 1 via the road-segment 1. For the
passengers arrived randomly. As for a long headway, i.e.,
case of TransJakarta BRT, the road-segment length varies
longer than 5 min, the times of arrivals are inclined to the
from 0.3km to 1 km[14]. The bus stays at Station 1 for some
log-normal distribution function. In the latter case, the
amount of time to drop and pick up the passengers, and then,
passengers mostly arrived in a few minutes before the bus
goes to Station 2. Finally, the bus will circulate in the corridor
scheduled arrival. Majority of the arrivals occurred about 4
until it meets the end of the operation time for the day.
min before the bus scheduled arrival. Many have identified
Modern BRT is also required to operate until late at night[1]. In
that the 5-min-headway time as the transition of the arrival
an actual BRT system, the bus will serve larger number of
patterns. We should note that Fan and Machemehl[17]
stations. TransJakarta BRT, for an example, has about 15–26
identified the headway of 10 minutes as the transition between
stations per corridor[14].
the two distributions.
 GUNAWAN Fergyanto E. et al. / J Transpn Sys Eng & IT, 2014, 14(4), 37−45

considerably[21]. To take this aspect into account, Osuna and

Newell[22], Holroyd and Scraggs[23] and Welding[24] advised:
μ⎛ s2 ⎞
w= ⎜1 + 2 ⎟ (1)
2⎝ μ ⎠
where w is the expected passengers waiting time; μ is the
mean headways between the buses; and s 2 is the variances
of headways between the buses. In addition, various empirical
formulas have been proposed, for example:
w = 1.79 + 0.14 μ O’Flaherty and Mangan[15] (2)
Fig. 3 Probability of passenger arrivals as a function of the bus w = 2.34 + 0.26 μ Seddon and Day[25] (3)
headway
w = 2.00 + 0.30μ Salek and Machemehl [16]
(4)
Those literatures, some are traditional, established the To achieve those described features, we designed the station
passengers waiting time ( w ) as a function of the bus headway sub-system as shown in Fig. 4. Essentially, the sub-block
( h ). Most literatures agreed that w = h / 2 for a short consists of two parts: the lower sub-block and the upper
headway[17]. This particular model was established on top of sub-block with two different entity-types. The entity in the
three assumptions: (i) the passengers arriving randomly, (ii) lower sub-block represents a passenger; meanwhile, the entity
the bus arriving regularly, and (iii) the passengers getting on in the upper sub-block represents a bus.
their first bus. In reality, the BRT bus headways may vary

Fig. 4 SimEvents block components for the BRT bus station.

The lower sub-block starts with the passenger arrival Finally, the bus will update those data, which are maintained
function. Basically, the function is a statistical function that as the bus attributes data, and departure data from the station
defines the nature of the passenger arrivals. The block signals to the next station.
the passenger generation block to initiate arrival of passengers. 2.3 The road-segment sub-system
The generated passengers will then be transferred to a first-in This sub-system has to be able to simulate the traveling of a
first-out (FIFO) waiting-line where the passengers will wait BRT bus along its corridor in a segment of road connecting
until the opening of the station gate. The station gate will two adjacent stations. This sub-system is characterized by the
receive a signal from the upper sub-block. The signal will be bus travel time and the number of buses accommodated by the
initiated in the upper sub-block when a bus arrives and dwells road segment. Therefore, this sub-system is also modeled with
at the station. a simple queue-server model having the FIFO queuing policy.
The upper sub-block starts with a port, which allows a bus This approach is appropriate considering the fact that majority
to approach the station. The current design of the upper of the busway is single lane; hence, a bus has no possibility to
sub-block allows a bus to bunch at the station. The bus overpass other buses.
bunching is one of the biggest issues faced by the modern A number of studies and observations indicate that the
BRT system. When the station is empty, the bus will dwell at travel time for the case can reasonably be approximated with
the station. The dwell-time will be determined by the the exponential distribution function with a single controlling
distribution from bus dwell-time block. The bus entity will parameter of the average travel speed of the bus or the average
then receive data regarding the number of alighting passengers bus travel time (for an example, see Gunawan et al.[21]).
and the number of passengers waiting in line to board the bus. Fig. 5 shows Matlab SimEvents implementation of the
 GUNAWAN Fergyanto E. et al. / J Transpn Sys Eng & IT, 2014, 14(4), 37−45

design. The design allows buses to bunch on the road-segment, scheduled time where each entity represents a BRT bus. Our
and the bus travel time will be determined by a block, which current SimEvents implementation is shown in Fig. 6. The
specifies the statistical distribution of the bus travel time. sub-system is started with the Time Schedule for Bus
Departure Block where the buses departure schedule is
specified. The bus schedule specification is deterministic.
When the bus has arrived, the Bus Departure Block will
release a bus per unit time. Hence, the current design does not
allow the bus pool sub-system to serve more than one bus per
unit time. Subsequently, the sub-system will record the bus
departure time, assign a bus number, and finally, create or
attach each bus with some attributes. Those attributes are
variables to hold the passenger data. At the current
implementation, those attributes are the number of passengers
Fig. 5 SimEvents block components for the road-segment sub-system
on the bus, and the number of alighted and boarded passengers
on the bus last station.
2.4 The pool of buses sub-system
This sub-system has to be able to generate entities at a

Fig. 6 SimEvents block components for the pool of buses sub-system

2.5 The traffic-signalsub-system figure indicates that the sub-system allowed vehicles to travel
This sub-system has to be able to simulate traveling of the during the green traffic-signal duration, and fully blocked
BRT buses across a manually controlled traffic-signal. during the remaining time.
Therefore, the system is characterized by the cycle time of the
traffic-signal, tc , and the duration of the green signal, t g .
3 Numerical trials
Also, the sub-system has to allow vehicles queuing for the 3.1 Passenger arrival models
traffic-signal. In this section, we present the results, and discussion, of a
We designed a sub-system as shown in Fig. 7 to achieve the numerical study that performed to evaluate the passenger
purpose stated above. Basically, the sub-system consists a arrivals on a BRT station and their relation to the bus arrivals.
FIFO queue block that facilitate the buses to wait for the green The relation is rather simple that more passengers are
light. The FIFO block is then followed by a traffic signal expected to be in queue when the bus headway is longer. In
block, which basically is a release gate block. The gate will addition, the passengers waiting time, obtained from the
open according to the time set by the traffic signal timing present computational model, should also agree, up to some
block. When the gate is open, the bus is allowed to move extent, with those predicted by the existing passenger waiting
forward. The timing block is a time function regulated by two models (see Eq. 1–Eq. 4).
variables: the traffic-signal cycle-time, tc , and the
green-signal duration, t g .

Fig. 7 SimEvents block components for the traffic signal

sub-system.

Fig. 8 demonstrates the use of this sub-system. For this case, Fig. 8 A test case of the traffic signal sub-system
30 vehicles were released from a pool, the cycle time was set
to 20 s, and the duration of the green signal was set to 5 s. The Before the discussion, we should restate a few notes
 GUNAWAN Fergyanto E. et al. / J Transpn Sys Eng & IT, 2014, 14(4), 37−45

regarding the present BRT station model. Basically, the station The simulation was executed for a final simulation time of
sub-system consists of two sub-blocks: the upper and lower 5000 min involving about 1 000 buses. However, only the
sub-blocks. The upper sub-block consists of queue-server results of the first 50 min simulation time are reproduced in
components that allow a BRT bus to bunch and settle at the Fig. 10.
station, and the lower sub-block only models the passenger Some notes outlined from the results are the following.
arrivals. The latter sub-block generates entities to represent Fig.10(a) shows the arrival and departure data of the first-nine
passengers, and holds the passengers in queue until the bus buses. The data are reproduced in Table 2, and then used to
arrives on the upper sub-block. Once the bus settles at the determine the actual dwell time and headway. The data
station on the upper sub-block, the block will send a signal to indicate that the third bus departed when the fourth bus
the lower block that the bus has arrived. The lower sub-block arrived. The same thing also occurred for the fourth and fifth
will open a gate to board passengers, will count the number of buses, the sixth and seventh buses, and the seventh and eighth
passengers boarding the bus, and will send the data to the buses. Therefore, we should not expect any queuing building
upper sub-block. The received data of the number of up before the arrival of the fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth
passengers will be maintained on the upper sub-block in the buses. Finally, we expect the first bus to gather more
bus attribute data. passengers than the other buses due to long bus-headway.
To evaluate the model of a BRT station, we established a
numerical model with the following input data. The
passengers would arrive randomly at the station at an average
rate of 2 passengers/min following the exponential distribution.
This data was a norm in many TransJakarta BRT station as
observed earlier by Gunawan et al.[20]. The buses would arrive
at the station randomly according to the exponential
distribution after traveling on a road segment. The mean of the
bus headways was 5 min. This assumption is based on
observation of Gunawan et al.[21], who measured the travel
times of TransJakarta BRT (see Fig. 9).
The arrived bus at the station would wait for the passengers
to board and to alight. The waiting time was set random Fig. 9 Distribution of the travel times between two-adjacent stations
according to a triangular distribution with the minimum, of TransJakarta BRT[21]
maximum, and mode times of 1 min, 3 min, and 2 min,
respectively.

Table 2 The arrival, departure, dwell, and headway times of the first-nine buses on the simulation.
Bus Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Arrival Time (min) 10.4 19.1 24.6 27.1 29.5 35.3 37.5 39.5 45.8
Departure Time (min) 13.0 21.2 27.1 29.5 31.1 37.5 39.5 41.9 48.0
Dwell Time (min) 2.6 2.1 2.5 2.5 1.6 2.2 2.0 2.4 2.2
Bus Headway (min) 10.4* 6.0 3.4 3.4 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 3.9
*Calculated from the starting of the simulation

Fig. 10(b) shows the arrival of the passengers at the station first bus picked up 28 passengers, the most among these buses.
that are presented as a counting function N (t ) , which is only This phenomenon agrees well with our early observation on
defined for t ≥ 0 . It is clear that the passenger arrivals were a the basis of the bus headway. Fig. 10(e) shows the passenger
stationary Poisson process. Fig. 10(c) shows the passengers waiting time distribution and fig. 10(f) shows the distribution
boarding the bus. In this case, the first-twenty-eight in form of a boxplot. The boxplot is also overlaid with the
passengers boarded the first bus including 23 passengers that empirical estimations of the waiting times given by Eq. 1–
had to wait for the bus, and 5 passengers arrived in time with Eq.4, and the both seem to have a strong agreement. In fact,
the bus. In this figure, the passenger waiting time is marked the estimations of three out of the four models were above the
with a long vertical line. The data also support the previous median and below the upper quartile of the simulated results.
assessment that the passengers did not need to queue for the Those evidences lead us to a conclusion that the present
fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth buses. Fig. 10(d) shows the numerical passenger arrival model is suitable to model the
number of passengers boarding on the first-nine buses. The arrival of passengers on a BRT station.
 GUNAWAN Fergyanto E. et al. / J Transpn Sys Eng & IT, 2014, 14(4), 37−45

3.2 Simple corridor

We established a small-symmetric BRT network for this
case of numerical trials. The network consists of a bus pool
and two BRT stations that are connected by two
road-segments. In the simulation, two buses were dispatched
from the bus pool and entered the network. Once the buses
were in the network, they would circulate from Station 1 to
Station 2, then, from Station 2 to Station 1, and so on. The
network is shown in Fig. 11 as a SimEvents model.

(d) The passenger on the buses

(a) Bus number arrived and left the station. Only the first 50-minute
simulation time is shown

(e) The distribution of the passenger waiting times

(b) The passengers arrived at the station

(f) The boxplot of the passenger waiting times and its comparison to
some mathematical model
Fig. 10 Simulation results

Fig. 11 The SimEvents-numerical model of the two-station corridor

(c) The passengers boarding the buses
 GUNAWAN Fergyanto E. et al. / J Transpn Sys Eng & IT, 2014, 14(4), 37−45

Besides the sub-systems of the road-segments, the bus pool station, the passengers were assumed to arrive according to a
and BRT stations, the SimEvents model above also has other Poisson process with an arrival rate of 1 person/min, slightly
sub-systems: Path Combiner and Get Attribute. The earlier lower than that observed by Gunawan et al.[20]. The number of
sub-system allows the bus, either from the bus pool or from alighted passengers was assumed to be discretely and
the station #2, to travel to the road segment #1. The latter uniformly distributed between 0 and 25 persons. Meanwhile,
sub-system allows us to extract the bus internal data or the the bus service time was short with a mode of 2 min. As for
buses attribute data; in this case, the data were the bus number the road-segment, the bus was assumed to travel with a
and the number of passengers on board. duration following the exponential distribution function with a
A complete list of the model parameters, associated with the mean of 5 min. The exponential distribution for the bus
SimEvents-numerical model, is given in Table 3. Those traveling time was also observed by Gunawan et al.[21]. Finally,
parameters were for the BRT stations, the road-segments, and the bus inter-departure time was set to exactly be 5 min that
the bus pool. The two BRT station were assumed to be was based on the BRT standard for the bus frequency during
identical, and so do the two road-segments. As for the BRT the rush-hours[1].

Table 3 Parameters of the simple corridor model

Model Parameters Characteristics Value
BRT station
Passenger Inter-arrival Time Stochastic; Exponential Distribution Mean = 1 person/min
Number of Alighted Pax Stochastic; Uniform Distribution Min. = 0, Max. = 25 persons
Bus Service Time Stochastic; Triangle Distribution Min. = 1 min, Max = 3 min, Mode = 2 min
Road segment
Travel Time Stochastic; Exponential Distribution Mean = 5 min
Bus pool
Bus Inter-departure Time Deterministic 5 min

The time frame for the simulation was 24 hours although passengers were on board for 62% of the time for the bus 1
BRT usually operates about 18 hours per day, and the analysis and 55% of the time for the bus 2.
was replicated for 200 days. The simulation results are
reproduced in Fig. 12–Fig.14.
The results in Fig. 12 show the distribution of passenger
numbers on the time-averaged sense on both the buses when
the analysis has reached its steady-state condition. The figure
reveals an interesting phenomenon that the distribution of the
time-averaged number of passengers was rather similar for
both buses. This fact seems acceptable by considering the
model design and its input parameters that were designed to
be symmetric. The actual numbers of passengers on the two
buses were 14 passengers on average with a deviation of 18
Fig. 12 Bi-histogram of the distribution of the time-averaged
passengers. When the buses left the BRT Station #2, they were number of passengers on both the buses in steady-state condition for
boarded with about 8 time-averaged number of the passengers 200 replications
for 85% of the cases. On a few cases, the second bus was
boarded by about 60 passengers. Variation of the number of
passengers was much wider on the second bus, about twice
wider than that on the first bus.
The time history data of passenger numbers are reproduced
in Fig. 13(a) for the first bus and in Fig. 13(b) for the second
bus. On the right side of each figure, a boxplot is provided to
show the final state of the time-averaged number of
passengers for 200 replications. In general, the passenger
numbers was highly fluctuating in the range of 0 to about 70
passengers. For the historical data depicted in the figure, the
(a)
 GUNAWAN Fergyanto E. et al. / J Transpn Sys Eng & IT, 2014, 14(4), 37−45

China: A simulation approach. In 87th Annual Meeting of the

Transp. Research Board, 2008:13–17.
[8] G Alves, J Roßmann, R Wischnewski. A discrete-event-
simulation approach for logistic systems with real time resource
routing and vr integration. World Academy of Science, Eng.,
and Tech., 2009, 58: 821–826.
[9] A Visser, A J van der Wees, L O Hertzberger. Discrete event
modelling methodology for intelligent transport systems. In
Proc. of the World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems,
Torino, Italy, 2000: 2016.
(b) [10] L V Bin, Niu Huimin. Realibility modeling and simulation of
Fig. 13 The history of the number of passengers on Buses 1 and 2 signalized intersections. Journal of Transportation System
(broken line), time-averaged (solid line), and a boxplot of the Engineering and Information Technology, 2011,11(6):45–50.
time-averaged number of passengers at the end of the analysis
[11] S Gao, Z Wu. Modeling passenger flow distribution based on
travel time of urban rail transit. Journal of Transportation
4 Conclusions Systems Engineering and Information Technology, 2011,
11:124–130.
This paper has discussed a potential use of the simulation
[12] Rodolfo Celestino Dos Santos Silva, Thiago Barros Brito, Rui
framework to model the dynamics of a bus-rapid transit
Carlos Botter, et al. Modeling of a closed-loop maritime
system. The framework was developed on the basis of the
transportation system with discrete event simulation and
standard features existed in a common discrete-event
multi-criteria decision analysis. In Proc. of the World Congress
simulation system. For this particular application, significant
on Eng. and Comp. Science, volume II, San Francisco, USA,
complexity of modeling was found in modeling a BRT station.
Oct. 2011: 19–21.
A few assumptions have to be made to allow development of
[13] K Valiguran, M Foltin, M Blaho. Transport system realization in
the sub-system. The established model, in limited numerical
simevents tool. [Link]
trials, systematically produced well observed phenomena of
MATLAB09/prispevky/107_valigura.pdf, Accessed on March
the actual BRT system.
2012.
References [14] Transjakarta profile book, 2012.
[15] C A O’Flaherty, D O Mangan. Bus passenger waiting times in
[1] Annie Weinstock, Walter Hook, Michael Replogle, et al. central areas. Traffic Engineering and Control, 1970, 11(9):
Recapturing global leadership in bus rapid transit: A survey of 419—421.
select U.S. cities. Technical report, ITDP, May 2011. [16] Mir-Davood Salek, Randy B Machemehl. Characterizing bus
[2] Carlos Campo. Bus rapid transit: Theory and practice in the transit passenger wait times. Technical Report Research Report
United States and abroad. Master thesis, School of Civil and 167211-1, Center for Transportation research, June 1999. URL
Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, [Link]
December 2010. f
[3] Bus rapid transit in Brazil, [Link] [17] Wei Fan, Randy B Machemehl. Characterizing bus transit
rapid_transit_in_Brazil. Accessed on March 2012. passenger waiting times. In 2nd Material Specialty Conference
[4] Fergyanto E Gunawan, Erwin Kusnandar. Evaluation of of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal,
transjakarta performance in comparison with world class bud Quebec, Canada, June, 2002:5–8.
rapid transit (in Indonesian language). Jurnal Jalan Dan [18] Marco Luethi, Ulrich Weidmann, Andrew Nash. Passenger
Jembatan, 2011, 28(2). arrival rates at public transport stations. Institute for transport
[5] Sudarmanto Nugroho, Akimasa Fujiwara, Junyi Zhang. An planning and systems, ETH Zurich, October 2006. URL
empirical analysis of the impact of a bus rapid transit system on [Link]
the concentration of secondary pollutants in the roadside areas [Link]. Retrieved on July 2012.
of the transjakarta corridors. Stochastic Environmental Research [19] M K Islam, Upali Vandebona. Reliability analysis of public
and Risk Assessment, 2011, 25:655–669. transit systems using stochastic simulation. In 33rd Australasian
[6] Juha-Matti Lehtonen, Ulla Seppa. A methodology for data Transport Research Forum Conference, Canberra, Australia, 29
gathering and analysis in logistics simulation project. Integrated September–1 October 2010.
manufacturing systems, 1997, 8(6):351–358. [20] Fergyanto E Gunawan, Erwin Kusnandar, Bahtiar Saleh Abbas,
[7] Huan Li, Baohua Mao, Robert L Bertini. Evaluating the impacts et al. Empirical level of demand of transjakarta bus rapid transit,
of bus facility design features on transit operations in Beijing, J. of Trans. Sys. Eng. and inf. Tech. (Review), 2012.
 GUNAWAN Fergyanto E. et al. / J Transpn Sys Eng & IT, 2014, 14(4), 37−45

[21] Fergyanto E Gunawan, Erwin Kusnandar, Bahtiar Saleh Abbas, [23] E M Holroyd, D A Scraggs. Waiting times for buses in central
et al. Travel time reliability of transjakarta, Indonesia bus rapid London. Traffic Engineering and Control, 1966, 8(3): 158–160.
transit, J. of Trans. Sys. Eng. and Inf. Tech. (Review), 2012. [24] P I Welding. The instability of a close-interval service.
[22] E E Osuna, G F Newell. Control strategies for an idealized Operational Research Quarterly, 1957, 8(3):133–148.
public transportation system. Transportation Science, [25] P A Seddon, M P Day. Bus passenger waiting times in greater
1972,21(1):55–61. Manchester. Traffic Engineering and Control, 1974,15: 422–445.

View publication stats