Started by jamespetts, January 08, 2013, 01:33:04 AM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: jamespetts on January 08, 2013, 01:33:04 AMSome passengers will have a very low journey time tolerance, and if the walking time to the origin stop plus the intermediate journey plus the walking time from the destination stop to the ultimate destination building will exceed their tolerance levels even if the intermediate journey - the only thing taken into account now - does not.
Quote from: ӔO on January 08, 2013, 09:34:43 AMI think it's a good solution.I can't help, but wonder, if it is possible to add a small chance, around 10% to 20% the person will walk at 3x the walking speed, by riding a bike.Assuming an average person can walk at 5km/h, a bike would do 15km/hbut if that's too complicated, then the walking only is perfectly suitable.
Quote from: jamespetts on January 08, 2013, 11:15:15 AMThis would simulate the fact that people do not usually consider convenience for long-distance journeys when deciding where to live or do business.
Quote from: inkelyad on January 08, 2013, 12:05:17 PMI believe it is not true for Japan, for example.
Quote from: jamespetts on January 14, 2013, 07:17:01 PMIt ought not be possible to separate networks in this way, as that is not realistic. Indeed, this absence of separation might well make passenger routing more stable.