Paper detail

Enforcing Priority in Schedule-based User Equilibrium Transit Assignment

Denied boarding in congested transit systems induces queuing delays and departure-time shifts that can reshape passenger flows. Correctly modeling these responses in transit assignment hinges on the enforcement of two priority rules: continuance priority for onboard passengers and first-come-first-served (FCFS) boarding among waiting passengers. Existing schedule-based models typically enforce these rules through explicit dynamic loading and group-level expected costs, yet discrete vehicle runs can induce nontrivial within-group cost differences that undermine behavioral consistency. We revisit the implicit-priority framework of Nguyen et al. (2001), which, by encoding boarding priority through the notion of available capacity, characterizes route and departure choices based on realized personal (rather than group-averaged) travel experiences. However, the framework lacks an explicit mathematical formulation and exact computational methods for finding equilibria. Here, we derive an equivalent nonlinear complementarity problem (NCP) formulation and establish equilibrium existence under mild conditions. We also show that multiple equilibria may exist, including behaviorally questionable ones. To rule out these artifacts, we propose a refined arc-level NCP formulation that not only corresponds to a tighter, behaviorally consistent equilibrium concept but also is more computationally tractable. We reformulate the NCP as a continuously differentiable mathematical program with equilibrium constraints (MPEC) and propose two solution algorithms. Numerical studies on benchmark instances and a Hong Kong case study demonstrate that the model reproduces continuance priority and FCFS queuing and captures departure-time shifts driven by the competition for boarding priority.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.