Network Analysis of the Tel Aviv Mass Transit Plan

Abstract

This paper analyzes the strategic transit network plan for the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, using graph theory and other recently developed transit network measures. The different transit modes included in the strategic plan are emphasized by adding weights to distinguish metro lines from light rail lines (LRT). This approach can help compare the combined metro or LRT alternatives of the new Tel Aviv plan to the metro-only alternatives  as well as measure the performance relative to the metro systems in other cities around the world. The analysis of the alternative plans in Tel Aviv showed that when metro and LRT lines were treated as homogeneous modes, in which all were considered as metro, the alternatives resembled medium developed metro systems, such as in Barcelona and Washington DC. In contrast, when the distinguished weights were included, the combined metro/LRT alternatives resembled less developed systems, such as in Lyon and Lisbon, and only the metro-only alterative score remained high. The results also showed that the alternatives have regional coverage, and the alternatives with more LRT lines score lower in coverage. The network structure analysis showed that the metro-oriented networks score higher in both directness and connectivity. When using the weighted measures, the existing plan (LRT-only) scores low on both directness and connectivity. The analysis of the results emphasizes the need for more metro lines in the Tel Aviv metropolitan area. The results also suggest that the analysis of the complex mass transit networks based on graph theory should consider differences in line technology reflected in the line speed and coverage.

Keywords

Mass transit / Network analysis / Tel Aviv / Strategic plan

References

[1] Allport R. Margaret JH. The metro: determining its viability. Developing world transport, 1990, London: Grosvenor Press International 64-69.

[2] Badia H, Estrada M, Robusté F. Bus network structure and mobility pattern: a monocentric analytical approach on a grid street layout. Transp Res B Methodol, 2016, 93: 37-56

[3] Cats O, Koppenol GJ, Warnier M. Robustness assessment of link capacity reduction for complex networks: application for public transport systems. Reliab Eng Syst Saf, 2017, 167(June): 544-553

[4] Daniels R, Mulley C (2011) Explaining walking distance to public transport: the dominance of public transport supply. In: World symposium on transport and land use research. The University of Sydney, Whistler, pp 1–22

[5] Derrible S, Kennedy C (2009) network analysis of world subway systems using updated graph theory. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2112, Transportation Research Board of the Natioanl Academies, Washington DC, pp 17–25

[6] Derrible S, Kennedy C. Characterizing metro networks: state, form, and structure. Transportation, 2010, 37: 275-297

[7] Derrible S, Kennedy C (2010b) Evaluating, comparing, and improving metro networks. Transportation Research Record: Journal of Transportation Research Board, No. 2146, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Washington DC, pp 43–51

[8] Derrible S, Kennedy C. The complexity and robustness of metro networks. Phys A, 2010, 389: 3678-3691

[9] El-Geneidy A, Grimsrud M, Wasfi R. New evidence on walking distances to transit stops: identifying redundancies and gaps using variable service areas. Transportation, 2014, 41(1): 193-210

[10] Feng J, Li X, Mao B, Xu Q, Bai Y. Weighted complex network analysis of the Beijing subway system: train and passenger flows. Phys A, 2017, 474: 213-223

[11] Fielbaum A, Jara-Diaz S, Gschwender A. Optimal public transport networks for a general urban structure. Transp Res B Methodol, 2016, 94: 298-313

[12] Jara-Díaz SR, Gschwender A, Ortega M. The impact of a financial constraint on the spatial structure of public transport services. Transportation, 2014, 41(1): 21-36

[13] Levinson D. Network structure and city size. PLoS ONE, 2012, 7(1): e29721

[14] Lin J, Ban Y. Complex network topology of transportation systems. Trans Rev, 2013, 33(6): 658-685

[15] Loo BP, Cheng AH. Are there useful yardsticks of population size and income level for building metro systems? Some worldwide evidence. Cities, 2010, 27: 299-306

[16] Rodrigue J-P, Slack B, Comtois C. The geogrphy of transport systems, 2013, New York: Routledge

[17] Sharav N, Shiftan Y, Szeinuk M (2016) Does your city needs a metro—the case study of Tel Aviv (submition)

[18] Soh H, Lim S, Zhang T, Fu X, Lee GK, Hung TG, Wong L. Weighted complex network analysis of travel routes on the Singapure public transportation system. Phys A, 2010, 389: 5582-5863

[19] Wang X, Koç Y, Derrible S, Ahmad S, Pino W, Kooij R. Multi-criteria robustness analysis of metro networks. Phys A, 2017, 474: 19-31

[20] Yang J, Quan J, Yan B, He C. Urban rail investment and transit-oriented development in Beijing: can it reach a higher potential?. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract, 2016, 89: 140-150