See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260958001

A survey of simulation platforms for the assessment of public transport

control systems

Conference Paper · May 2014

DOI: 10.1109/ICAdLT.2014.6864088

CITATIONS READS

10 8,553

4 authors:

Nesrine Ghariani Sabeur Elkosantini

Institut Supérieur de Gestion de Tunis University of Carthage
4 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    58 PUBLICATIONS   309 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Saber Darmoul Lamjed Ben Said

Ecole Centrale Casablanca Université de Tunis
73 PUBLICATIONS   447 CITATIONS    196 PUBLICATIONS   1,331 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SAFE-TRACS: Developing an Artificial Immune System to control roadway traffic signals and regulate traffic flow in case of emergencies View project

TrEE 4.0 : Transforming Engineering Education towards excellence based on Industry 4.0 paradigm and technologies View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Saber Darmoul on 25 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A survey of simulation platforms for the
assessment of public transport control systems
Nesrine Ghariani Sabeur Elkosantini
SOIE Laboratory, Tunisia ISI Mahdia
gharines@yahoo.fr University of Monastir
SOIE Laboratory, Tunisia
Sabeur.elkosantini@yahoo.fr
Abstract—In public transportation, simulation provides
capabilities of investigation of complex interactions between the
components of the transportation system, including
infrastructure, vehicles, passengers and intelligent transportation
system. Although many simulation platforms (either commercial
or open source) exist to test, validate and evaluate the
performance of control systems, the development of platforms
that integrate specific requirements of public transport systems
still requires much investigation and effort. This paper reviews
the main features of traditionally used simulation platforms. A
comparative analysis is provided based on different criteria
related to infrastructure, vehicles or the ability to implement and
test intelligent and distributed control architectures. Several
research directions are also pointed out and discussed.
Keyword:Public transport, simulation, decision support system
I. INTRODUCTION
Transportation systems include transport of persons and/or
goods, in rural and/or urban areas. Intelligent Transportation
Systems (ITS) have been introduced to maximize the efficiency
and effectiveness of transportation systems [4, 6]. ITS are
systems in which information and communication technologies
are applied in the field of road transport, for the management of
traffic and mobility, as well as for interfaces with other modes
of transport (cf. the European Union (EU) Directive
2010/40/EU on the framework for the deployment of
Intelligent Transport Systems). ITS are particularly important
in the management of public transportation because they allow
real time control of such complex systems. Public
transportation is setting great challenges related to the design,
development and implementation of new infrastructure
(vehicles, circulation pathways, intersections, traffic lights,
stops, stations, etc.), control systems (such as Intelligent
Transportation Systems) and management policies (e.g. multi
modal transportation, public transportation, etc.).
More particularly, transportation authorities and researchers
are usually faced with the problem of testing, evaluating and
assessing the performance of ITS developed for public
transportation. Indeed, some ITS architectures were tested on
real systems [3, 5]. However, real scale testing, validation and
assessment of performance are very complex, risky and
expensive, as they require an available transportation system,
equipped with all required information technologies.
Consequently, simulation is a suitable and cost effective
alternative, which is widely used to test, validate, and assess
the performance of ITS architectures. Unfortunately, despite
the existence of a variety of transportation simulation tools,
Saber Darmoul Lamjed Ben Said
Industrial Engineering High Institute of
Department, Management of Tunis
King Saud University - KSA SOIE Laboratory, Tunisia
sdarmoul@ksu.edu.sa lamjed.bensaid@isg.rnu.tn
only a few allow taking into account the specificities of Public
Transportation Systems (PTS).
The goal of this paper is to review some of existing
simulation platforms used to test, validate and assess the
performance of Public Transport Control Systems (PTCS). The
aim of a PTCS is to help manage the complexity of PTSs and
to improve their efficiency and user-friendliness. Various
simulation platforms with different capabilities were identified
and compared. For example, the European SMARTEST
(simulation modeling applied to road transport European
scheme tests) manual analyzes 32 simulation models [1].
Although different criteria were studied, the report focused
only on urban transportation (intersection control, motorway
flow control, dynamic route guidance and regional traffic
information) and did not address PTS constraints. The report
indicated that only 52% of simulators integrate public
transportation. Boxill and Lei [5] presented an evaluation of
more than 80 traffic simulation models. They classify
simulation models according to 5 criteria, like the ability to
measure time or speed of travel and the credibility of theories
used. Then, they identified more specific features based on
previous criteria. However, they did not consider criteria
associated to PTS in their study. They particularly highlighted
that the capability of existing simulation models to efficiently
simulate PTCS applications in large networks is limited. To the
best of our knowledge, all comparative analysis of the traffic
simulation software focus on hardware/software requirements;
difficulty/ease of network coding; data requirements and
appropriateness of defaults; and relevance/accuracy of
performance measures of urban traffic system, without the
consideration of specific requirements of public transport.
In this paper, we suggest an analysis framework to study
the ability of existing simulation platforms to simulate public
transport systems and to test, validate, and assess the
performance of PTCS. We limit the focus of the paper to the
most used simulation platforms in the scientific literature. In
addition to the investigation of specific characteristics of these
tools and their ability to integrate all features of a PTS, the
framework also considers the capability of each simulation tool
to interface external applications (as decision support systems
or PTCS) and to simulate intelligent vehicles and/or
infrastructure (as stop stations).
The paper is organized as follows: Section II introduces
PTS characteristics. Section III presents different simulation
platforms. The suggested comparative analysis framework is
presented in section IV. In section V, a discussion and future
research directions are provided.
II. EXISTING SIMULATION PLATEFORMS
In the last decade, microscopic simulations have undergone
much improvement for a better representation of transport
networks. Many traffic simulation software have been
developed, including open source software, such as SUMO
[11] and TRANSIMS [22], or commercial software, as
ARCHISIM [15], AIMSUN [29], PARAMICS [23], VISSIM
[21] or CORSIM [25]. They are often used to assess the
performance of PTCS. In this study, we limit the focus of the
paper to the most used tools and compare their capabilities to
simulate PTS in order to assess the performance of public
transport control systems. Other simulation software may exist
but they are not integrated on this study as some of them are
less used in the scientific literature. This study can be extended
in a future work to integrate more software.
PARAMICS (PARAllel Microscopic Simulation) [23, 28]
is originally developed at the Edinburgh Parallel Computing
Center in Scotland in 1990. PARAMICS is a commercial
software integrating a microscopic traffic modeled dedicated
for the simulation of congested traffic networks. PARAMICS
can simulate hundreds of vehicles in real world traffic
conditions.
AIMSUN (Advanced Interactive Microscopic Simulator for
Urban and Non-urban Networks) [29] is a recent simulation
software, developed in 2005 by J. Barcelo and J.L. Ferrer at the
Polytechnic University of Catalunya in Barcelona. It is a
commercial software tool capable of reproducing real traffic
conditions in an urban network to develop and test control
traffic systems, management traffic rules, public transport
networks, lanes, new infrastructure or the prevision of traffic
conditions.
Figure 2. VISSIM
TRANSIMS (Transportation ANalysis and SIMulation
System) is an open source simulation software that allows an
analysis of transportation systems. It was developed at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory in 1995. According to [12], it
supports the whole process of transportation modeling and
simulation from population synthesis, through activity
generation to traffic micro-simulation.
SUMO (Simulation of Urban MObility) [11] is another
open source simulation software developed by the Institute of
Transportation Systems at the German Aerospace Centre in
2001. It can simulate the traffic at the microscopic level with
continuous space and traffic simulation discrete time.

Figure 1. PARAMICS

VISSIM (Verkehr In Städten – SIMulations modell) [21] is

a commercial microscopic multi-modal traffic flow simulation
software developed by Planning Transport Verkehr (PTV, a
German company) in 1992, and is being distributed in North
America by Innovative Transportation Concepts. VISSIM is
one of the most used simulation software to simulate, evaluate
and validate new transportation policies and control systems
[24]. It can model integrated roadway networks, as well as
different modes, such as buses, light rail, heavy rail, trucks,
pedestrians, and bicycles [24].
CORSIM (CORridor SIMulation) [25] is a simulation Figure 3. SUMO
software that was sponsored and developed by Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) in 1998. CORSIM is based ARCHISIM [15] is a realistic simulation tool for urban
on car-following and lane-changing theories to model vehicle traffic developed by INRETS (Institut National de REcherche
movements. CORSIM integrates a stochastic model that sur les Transports et leur Sécurité) in 1992. It is based on a
incorporates random processes to model vehicle, driver multi-agent system using a behavioral microscopic model.
behavior and network infrastructure. Thus, it is coupled with driving simulator (SIM). ARCHISIM
is a flexible tool; it was used to study the impact of alarm
system by electronic messages on the road traffic [2] or to
study new road profiles [9].
Figure 4. ARCHISIM
These tools are dedicated to the simulation and control of
urban traffic flows. In next section, we present an analysis
framework to analyze the capability of these tools to simulate
PTS and to test, validate and assess the performance of PTCS.
III. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK FOR PTS
SIMULATION PLATEFORMS
The suggested framework is based on six main criteria,
which can be categorized into two types. The first type of
criteria concern general features of a simulation software:
• Software category: commercial or open source,
• Space domain: we distinguish two types of systems:
discrete (variables change instantly as unpredictable
events) and continuous (variables change continuously
as the traffic flow) simulation,
• Visualization: to evaluate if the software allows 2D
and/or 3D Visualization,
The second type of criteria concern the ability of simulation
software to integrate PTS components as:
• Infrastructure: including routes and stops. Routes
correspond to the “lines” or itinerary of public
transport networks and stops are places where vehicles
stop to pick up or drop off passengers.
• Travelers: they are autonomous virtual entities. A
traveler is usually a passenger who catches a public
transport vehicle to move from one stop to another.
• Public transport vehicle: it is a vehicle designed to
carry on passengers. Vehicles travel along defined
routes and according to operating rules (e.g. timetable).
Figure 5 illustrates the interaction between the different
components of PTS. A more detailed description of each
component is given in next paragraphs.
A. Infrastructure
PTS infrastructure includes stops, stations and routes. A
stop is a location where passengers can wait for public
transport vehicles (as buses or tramways) and where vehicles
can stop to pick up or drop off passengers. Stops allow the
connection between different lines [8, 19]. Meignan et al. [17]
noted that there is a difference between stops and stations. A
stop belongs to one itinerary, while a station gathers a set of
close stops. Bus stops are generally characterized by their
location (far side, near side), their boarder, their width, the bus
bays, Kerb profiles and heights [7, 10]. When a vehicle arrives
at a stop, some stages can be defined [30]: deceleration,
stopping at the stop, boarding and alighting, and clearance time
(waiting for a gap to get back into the traffic flow, acceleration,
and leaving the stop area). In the Guidelines for the Design and
Placement of Transit Stops manual, many types of stops were
distinguished as those dedicated to buses (as
Sheltered/Non‐Sheltered bus stops, in-line bus stops, island
type bus stops), or to tram stops.
A route (also referred to as line) is a sequence of stops
arranged in a particular order [26, 27]. It corresponds to a travel
path or an itinerary in which a public vehicle moves from one
stop to another. One or more trips can be assigned to a route
according to a timetable.
B. Travelers
A traveler (also called passenger) is a person who changes
location by any transportation mode. Some authors also
consider vehicle drivers as travelers [14], while others only
consider passengers as travelers [3, 28]. Passengers can have
reduced mobility such as an injured, handicapped person or a
pregnant woman [16]. Each passenger has an entry time to the
stop, a waiting time for a vehicle (e.g. bus, metro or tram) and a
boarding time. When arriving to his destination, a passenger
has an alighting time.
C. Public vehicles
Public transport networks combine different modes: guided
mode (such as bus, metro, tramway), free mode (such as
bicycles or cars), and non-motorized mode. All modes have
different features. In this paper, we focus only on public
transport vehicles. Such vehicles have some common
characteristics as their speed, length, door number, on board
passengers (or occupancy) or capacity. Public vehicles are
often obliged to follow a timetable, which determines planned
arrival and departure times of vehicles at stops. Different types
of buses may exist in a PTS as:
• Bus carries several people together along the same path
(sitting and standing).
• Autobus belongs to free mode [18], which follows a
predefined timetable but remains flexible.
• Minibus is a vehicle with minimum capacity (usually
four seats); its route and its frequency are established
according the demand. It is suitable to specific
categories of people, such as elderly or handicapped
persons.
 Figure 5. Class diagram of public transport system
• Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a bus with large capacity
and reserved lanes. It offers a high level of services,
where the frequency reaches few minutes. BRT
combines the capacity and speed of light rail or metro
with the simplicity of a bus system.
Furthermore, the pre-scheduled timetables, which are based
on estimations of traffic conditions, the travel times and
transport demand, may deviate from their expected course.
This deviation may be due to appearance of random
phenomena influencing network traffic, called disturbances as
accidents, absence of personnel, vehicle breakdown, bad
weather conditions or traffic congestion causing timetables
either to be delayed or to become obsolete [13]. Moreover,
other constraints associated to the network may affect vehicles
behavior, such as stops location and the number of times a
vehicle is required to stop. To overcome these problems, a
PTCS has to build control decisions [20], which intend to
eliminate or at least reduce the delays that may appear during
the execution of a pre-established timetable. Vehicles should
integrate intelligent processes allowing them to build a suitable
control decision.
IV. DISCUSSION
In this section, the capabilities of some simulation
platforms to test, validate and assess the performance of Public
Transport Control Systems are analyzed based on the
framework presented in section III. The analysis is based on the
following criteria: Software category, Space domain,
Visualization, Infrastructure, Public vehicles and Individual.
As illustrated in table 1, some tools are based on discrete
event simulation (DEVS) methodology, in which space and
time are discretized as PARAMICS, ARCHISIM or CORSIM.
Other tools, as VISSIM, use continuous simulation. A few
tools offer both 2D and 3D visualization. AIMSUN, VISSIM
and PARAMICS provide the ability to import aerial images
that can be used as a background and as a guide during the
creation of street networks. Moreover, a few simulators offer
3D views during simulation. However, the 3D views offered in
VISSIM and AIMSUN are of higher quality than in
PARAMICS. In PARAMICS, vehicles appear as 3D blocks
with no distinct features. However, in VISSIM and AIMSUN,
vehicles appear with distinct features. We also can present
passenger characteristics with VISSIM. In some simulation
software, a special attention was given to driver parameters.
For example, VISSIM offers different models of car following
or lane changing.
Most of commercial simulation tools integrate PTS
infrastructure features as different types of bus stops or bus
routes. Some commercial simulators, as ARCHISIM and Open
source tools have restricted ability in simulating different types
of stops. However, few tools allow the simulation of public
transport vehicles with all their characteristics as VISSIM and
PARAMICS. They integrated many types of vehicles as buses,
minibuses, subway and tramway.
Even though VISSIM, AIMSUN and PARAMICS allow
the simulation of bus routes, only VISSIM simulates
alighting/boarding passengers from the left side of roads.
Consequently, only VISSIM allows bus stops to be located on
the left side or on the right side of roads. Bus occupancy rate
and vehicle capacity can also be defined in VISSIM and
PARAMICS, while the number of doors in buses is only
recognized in VISSIM. Some simulation software provide the
same performance indicators as dwell time, which his “the
passengers boarding time” when a bus arrives at the station.
However, Dwell time, for example, is computed in different
manner using PARAMICS or VISSIM, or AIMSUN.
 TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF SIMULATION SOFTWARE WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC TRANSPORT

AIMSUN VISSIM PARAMICS CORSIM SUMO TRANSIMS ARCHISIM

Software category Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial Open source Open Source Commercial
Discrete-
Space domain Continuous Discrete Discrete Continuous Discrete Discrete
Continuous
Visualization 2D/3D 2D/3D 2D/3D 2D 2D 2D 2D
Reserved lane yes yes yes yes yes yes no
Stop number yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Infrastructure Stop type yes yes no yes no yes no
Stop capacity yes yes yes yes no no no
Priority at signalized
no yes yes yes no no yes
intersection
Door number no yes no no no no no
Alighting/Boarding
no yes yes no no no no
passenger
Capacity no yes yes no no no no
Public Occupancy no yes yes yes no no no
Vehicle Route yes yes yes yes yes no yes
Timetable yes yes yes yes no yes no
Speed yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
Dwell time yes yes yes yes yes no no
Rail transport yes yes yes no no no no
Intelligent vehicles no no no no no no no
Passenger behavior no yes yes no no no no
Travelers Driver behavior (car
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes
following…)

Most of commercial simulation software provides It is important to outline that VISSIM is not able to assess
information about onboard passengers or those waiting at stop the performance of decentralized PTCS in which vehicles are
stations. However, SUMO or TRANSIMS do not provide able to analyze data, to build their control decisions and to
enough real-time information about passengers. Such communicate with other vehicles or with infrastructure.
information is very useful by Public Transport Control Systems
(PTCS) to build an appropriate control decision. To overcome this disadvantage, we suggest a new test
platform architecture extending VISSIM functionalities and
According to our analysis, most of existing simulation tools allowing the simulation of intelligent vehicles and
are oriented to urban traffic simulation and not well adapted to implementing well known control decisions (Figure 6).
simulate intelligent PTS. VISSIM simulation tools seem to be
the most appropriate (among existing ones), which can be used
to assess the performance of some PTCS architectures.
However, none of presented tools (including VISSIM) allows
the simulation of intelligent vehicles. They have a static
behavior and do not have the capability to take a decision as
soon as a disturbance is detected as accident or traffic
congestion. Some tools as VISSIM or AIMSUN provide an
additional module which procures COM (component object
model) functionality to use with external programming
environments. Such models can be used to control the vehicle
by an external program. Consequently, all of existing
simulation tools are only able to assess the performance of
centralized PTCS, which is implemented as an external
program communicating with simulation tools via API. In such
PTCS, the system analyzes data and builds decision control for
each disturbed vehicles.
Figure 6: A new PTCS test architecture based on VISSIM
 This architecture, which can be used as a benchmarking
platform, will be used to compare the performance of PTCS.
Thus, PTCS will communicate with VISSIM via an interface
provided by our test platform. This latter will communicate
with VISSIM via COM (Component Object Model) interface,
initially provided by VISSIM.
V. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK
In this paper, we have presented recent advances in
simulation of public transport systems and in testing,
validation, and assessment of performance of intelligent public
transport control systems. We have suggested an analysis
framework to compare exiting simulation platforms. This
analysis is based on criteria to evaluate the capability of
simulation software to simulate infrastructure, vehicles and
passengers. In a future work, this analysis can be extended to
others considerations as the possible modifications on the
environment. The analysis of the presented tools shows that
they are more focused on urban traffic simulation and not well
adapted to simulate intelligent PTS. We have noted that
VISSIM is relatively more complete than other tools and the
most adapted to simulate PTS. Nevertheless, VISSIM requires
some adaptations to be fully able to test, validate, and assess
the performance of intelligent public transport control systems.
To address these limitations, we suggest a new test platform
architecture extending VISSIM functionalities and allowing the
simulation of intelligent vehicles and implementing well
known control decisions as holding and skipping strategies.
In future work, we will develop a generic validation and
benchmarking architecture, which will assess the performance
of developed PTCS considering all PTS features.
REFERENCE
[1] Algers, S., Bernauer, E., Boero, M., Breheret, L., Taranto, C., Fox, K., et
al. (1996). A Review of Micro-simulation Models, SMARTEST:
Simulation Modeling Applied to Transport European Scheme Tests.
Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds .
[2] Auberlet, J., Espié, S., & Champion, A. (2002). Study of the impact of
an autonomous alert system by messages with the behavioral simulation
model ARCHISIM. Proceedings of the World Congress on Intelligent
Transport Systems .
[3] Balbo, F. P. (2010). Using intelligent agents for Transportation
Regulation Support System design. Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies 18(1), pp. 140–156 .
[4] Banks, J. (1998). Principles of simulation. In Handbook of
simulation:Principles, Methodology, Advancing Application and
Practice, pp. 3–30.
[5] Boxill, S., & Lei, Y. (2000). An Evaluation of Traffic Simulation
Models for Supporting ITS Development. Center for Transportation
Training and Research, Texas Southern University- Report No.
SWUTC/00/167602-1.
[6] Burghout, W., Koutsopoulos, H., & Andréasson, I. (2005). Hybrid
Mesoscopic-Microscopic Traffic Simulation. Transportation Research
Record 1934, pp. 218–225 .
[7] Casey, R., LAbell, L. M., & Royal, J. (2000). Advanced Public
Transportation Systems - The State of the Art :Art: Update 2000. . US
Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA),
Washington, DC.
[8] Cortes, E., Burgos, V., & Fernandez, R. (2010). Modelling passengers,
buses and stops in traffic microsimulation: review and extensions.
JOURNAL OF ADVANCED TRANSPORTATION, J. Adv. Transp;
vol. 44, pp. 72–88 .
View publication stats
[9] Espié, S., Auberlet, J., & Zhang, M. (2002). Approche intégrée pour
l’étude de nouveaux profils routiers. Proceedings of the Driving
Simulation Conference 2002, pp. 175-194 .
[10] Fernández, R. (1998). Modelling Bus-stop Interactions, PhD Thesis.
University of London, London, UK .
[11] German-Aerospace-Center-Instute-of-Transportation-Systems. (2011).
http://sumo.sourceforge.net/doc/current/docs/userdoc/SUMO_User_Doc
umentation.html.
[12] Kikuchi, S., & Pilko, P. (2004). TRANSIMS, Evaluation and feasibility:
Application in Delaware. Report submitted to Delawae Department of
transportation, University of Delaware .
[13] Krasemann, J. T. (2012). Design of an effective algorithm for fast
response to the re-scheduling of railway traffic during disturbances.
.Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 20, Issue
1, pp. 62-78.
[14] Levinson, D. (2003). The value of advanced traveler information
systems for route choice,. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging
Technologies, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp. 75–87 .
[15] Mandiau, R., Champion, A., Auberlet, J., Espié, S., & Kolski, C. (2008).
Behaviour based on decision matrices for a coordination between agents
in urban traffic simulation. Applied Intelligence, 28 (2), pp. 121-138 .
[16] Márquez, M., & Garcia, J. (2000). Ergonomics of urban public
passengers transportation. National Experimental University of Tachira
(UNET), Prototyping Laboratory, Research and Technological
Development- San Cristobal, Táchira, Venezuela .
[17] Meignan, D., Simonin, O., & Koukam, A. (2007). Simulation and
evaluation of urban bus-networks using a multiagent approach.
Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, pp. 659–671 .
[18] Melki, A. (2008). Système d’aide à la régulation et évaluations des
transports multimodaux intégrant les cybercars. PhD thesis, Ecole
centrale de Lille. .
[19] Nguyen, V. (2013). Bus Prioritisation in Motorcycle Dependent Cities,
PhD Thesis.
[20] Nguyen-Duc, K. D.-G. (2007). The real-time stop-skipping in the
urbantransportation networks. The 4th International federation of
Automatic Control Conference on Management and Control of
Production and Logistics, IFAC MCPL. Sibui : Romania .
[21] PTV-Vissim-User-Manual. (2011). URL:http://vision-
traffic.ptvgroup.com/fr/produits/ptv-vissim/.
[22] Pursula, M. (1999). Simulation of Traffic Systems- An Overview.
Journal of Geographic Information and Decision Analysis, vol.3, no.1,
pp. 1-8 .
[23] Quadstone-PARAMICS. (2008). URL: http://www.paramics-
online.com/.
[24] Ratrout, N., & Rahman, M. (2009). A comparative analysis of curretly
used microscopiq and macroscopic traffic simulation software. The
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 34, no. 1B, pp. 121-
133 .
[25] Sandoval, B., & Rudy Malfabon, P. (2012). CORSIM : Modeling
guidelines. Nevada Department of Transportation .
[26] Silva, P. (2001). Modeling interactions between bus operations and
traffic flow. PhD Thesis submitted to the University of London for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy .
[27] Toledo, T., Cats, O., Burghout, W., & Koutsopoulos, H. (2010).
Mesoscopic Simulation for Transit Operations. Transportation Research
Part C, pp. 896-908 .
[28] Trans-ITS. (2002). Intelligent Public Transport Systems : State-of-the-
art in Europe. International Association of Public Transport .
[29] Transport-Simulation-System-AIMSUN. (2010). URL:
http://www.aimsun.com/wp/.
[30] Tyler, N., Silva, P., & Brown, N. F. (2003). Operational impacts of bus
stops. Accessibility and the Bus System: From Concepts to Practice.
Thomas Telford: London, pp. 99–137.