# Resilience Analysis of Traffic Network under Emergencies: A Case Study of Bus Transit Network
## 4 Case Analysis
### Experimental Process and Result  
(1) Key indicator screening  
First, calculate the weights of the indicators for each of the two routes: entropy weight \(w_{j}{}^{(1)}\) and CRITIC weight \(w_{j}{}^{(2)}\). The results are shown in Table 7.  
From Table 7, it can be observed that the CRITIC method adequately reflects the strength of the indicators' comparisons and correlations. The boarding and alighting \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Line 1**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Indicator Name**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Entropy Weight Parameter**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**CRITIC Parameters**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & \(e_{j}\) & \(d_{j}\) & \(w_{j}{}^{(1)}\) & \(S_{j}\) & \(R_{j}\) & \(\overline{x_{j}}\) & \(w_{j}{}^{(2)}\) \\ \hline Bunching (E2) & 0.9476 & 0.0524 & 13.40\% & 22.572 & 11.111 & 250.803 & 1.78\% \\ Big interval (E3) & 0.9915 & 0.0085 & 2.17\% & 1.591 & 11.249 & 17.896 & 0.13\% \\ Punctuality rate (D1) & 0.998 & 0.002 & 0.50\% & 10.213 & 10.481 & 107.05 & 0.76\% \\ Actual departure interval (A1) & 0.9893 & 0.0107 & 2.75\% & 2.505 & 12.16 & 30.459 & 0.22\% \\ Actual arrival interval (A2) & 0.9892 & 0.0108 & 2.76\% & 2.356 & 11.095 & 26.136 & 0.19\% \\ Card swiping passenger & 0.9535 & 0.0465 & 11.89\% & 932.173 & 10.087 & 9402.615 & 66.64\% \\ volume (B1) & 0.9984 & 0.0016 & 0.40\% & 0.092 & 11.551 & 1.057 & 0.01\% \\ Load factor (B3) & 0.9263 & 0.0737 & 18.88\% & 0.239 & 10.941 & 2.62 & 0.02\% \\ Landing volume (B2) & 0.9516 & 0.0484 & 12.38\% & 407.536 & 10.013 & 4080.534 & 28.92\% \\ Number of online operating & 0.9822 & 0.0178 & 4.56\% & 3.75 & 11.361 & 42.603 & 0.30\% \\ Vehicles (C2) & 0.976 & 0.024 & 6.14\% & 0.299 & 11.772 & 3.521 & 0.02\% \\ OD passenger flow (B4) & 0.9056 & 0.0944 & 24.16\% & 12.809 & 11.333 & 145.154 & 1.03\% \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{9}{c}{Line 139} \\ \hline Indicator Name & \(e_{j}\) & \(d_{j}\) & \(w_{j}{}^{(1)}\) & \(S_{j}\) & \(R_{j}\) & \(\overline{x}_{j}\) & \(w_{j}{}^{(2)}\) \\ \hline Bunching (E2) & 0.9353 & 0.0647 & 13.70\% & 3.338 & 11.025 & 36.797 & 2.29\% \\ Big interval (E3) & 0.9833 & 0.0167 & 3.53\% & 1.133 & 12.038 & 13.637 & 0.85\% \\ Punctuality rate (D1) & 0.9968 & 0.0032 & 0.67\% & 9.712 & 10.13 & 98.384 & 6.13\% \\ Actual departure interval (A1) & 0.9899 & 0.0101 & 2.14\% & 2.387 & 10.976 & 26.2 & 1.63\% \\ Actual arrival interval (A2) & 0.9899 & 0.0101 & 2.15\% & 2.225 & 10.213 & 22.724 & 1.42\% \\ Card swiping passenger & 0.9164 & 0.0836 & 17.70\% & 97.702 & 9.83 & 960.423 & 59.84\% \\ volume (B1) & 0.998 & 0.002 & 0.43\% & 0.101 & 10.843 & 1.091 & 0.07\% \\ Load factor (B3) & 0.9471 & 0.0529 & 11.21\% & 0.136 & 10.39 & 1.417 & 0.09\% \\ Landing volume (B2) & 0.9115 & 0.0885 & 18.74\% & 43.358 & 9.669 & 419.244 & 26.12\% \\ Number of online operating & 0.9906 & 0.0094 & 2.00\% & 1.071 & 9.789 & 10.48 & 0.65\% \\ Bus single-trip time (E1) & 0.9023 & 0.0977 & 20.69\% & 0.353 & 11.084 & 3.911 & 0.24\% \\ OD passenger flow (B4) & 0.9667 & 0.0333 & 7.05\% & 0.958 & 11.037 & 10.574 & 0.66\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Weight calculation results. volume and the card-swiping passenger volume show significant variations, indicating that these two indicators can reflect more information. On the other hand, the entropy weight method indirectly reflects the importance of indicators based on their degree of dispersion. For indicators with larger variations in the CRITIC method, their information entropy is relatively smaller, which confirms that they contain more information. The weights obtained from the two methods are compared in Figures 14 and 15. From the figures, it can be observed that in the entropy weight method, the weights of indicators such as boarding and alighting volume, occupancy rate, card-swiping passenger volume, and occurrence of bus bunching are all above 10%, significantly higher than the weights of other indicators. Additionally, Route 1's OD passenger flow and Route 139's card-swiping passenger volume also have relatively high weights.