Advertisement

Soft Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 14, pp 5945–5966 | Cite as

Lower and upper bounds for scheduling multiple balancing vehicles in bicycle-sharing systems

  • Ahmed A. Kadri
  • Imed KacemEmail author
  • Karim Labadi
Methodologies and Application
  • 125 Downloads

Abstract

Public bicycle-sharing systems have been implemented in many big cities around the world to face many public transport problems. The exploitation and the management of such transportation systems imply crucial operational challenges. The balancing of stations is the most crucial question for their operational efficiency and economic viability. In this paper, we study the balancing problem of stations with multiple vehicles by considering the static case. A mathematical formulation of the problem is proposed, and two lower bounds based on Eastman’s bound and SPT rule are developed. Moreover, we proposed four upper bounds based on a genetic algorithm, a greedy search algorithm and two hybrid methods that integrate a genetic algorithm, a local search method and a branch-and-bound algorithm. The developed lower and upper bounds are tested and compared on a large set of instances.

Keywords

Bicycle-sharing systems Lower and upper bounds Greedy search Hybrid algorithms Branch-and-bound Vehicle routing problem 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Anholt R, Coelho L, Laporte G, Vis I (2016) An inventory-routing problem with pickups and deliveries arising in the replenishment of automated teller machines. Transp. Sci. 50(3):1077–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aultman-Hall L, Kaltenecker-Georgina M (1999) Toronto bicycle commuter safety rates. Accid Anal Prev 31:675–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benchimol M, Benchimol P, Chappert B, Taille A, Laroche F, Meunier F, Robinet L (2010) Balancing the stations of a self-service bike hire system. RAIRO Oper. Res. 45:37–61MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Bordagaray M, Ibeas A, dellOlio L (2012) Modelling user perception of public bicycle services. EWGT 2012, 15th meeting of the EURO working group on transportation. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 54:1308–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Callé E (2009) Director of Operation in Vélib, April 2009, Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  6. Carrabs F, Cerulli R, D’Ambrosio C, Raiconi A (2017a) An exact algorithm to extend lifetime through roles allocation in sensor networks with connectivity constraints. Optim Lett 11(7):1341–1356MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Carrabs F, Cerulli R, Sciomachen A (2017b) An exact approach for the grocery delivery problem in urban areas. Soft Comput 21(9):2439–2450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Castao F (2016) Partial target coverage to extend the lifetime in wireless multi-role sensor networks. Networks.  https://doi.org/10.1002/net.21682 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Chang Y (2010) Adopting co-evolution and constraint-satisfaction concept on genetic algorithms to solve supply chain network design problems. Expert Syst Appl 37(10):6919–6930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chemla D, Meunier F, WolflerCalvo R (2011) Balancing a bike-sharing system with multiple vehicles. ROADEF, Saint-Etienne, FranceGoogle Scholar
  11. Chemla D, Meunier F, Wolfer-Calvo R (2013) Bike sharing systems: solving the static rebalancing problem. Discrete Optim 10(2):120–146MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Christophe P, Hugues B (2007) A gestalt genetic algorithm: less details for better search. In: Genetic and evolutionary computation conference, pp 1328–1334Google Scholar
  13. DeMaio P (2009) Bike-sharing: history, impacts, models of provision, and future. J Public Transp 14(4):41–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Gasperro L, Rendl A, Urli T (2013) A hybrid ACO+CP for balancing bicycle-sharing systems. In: Blesa MJ, Blum C, Festa P, Roli A, Sampels M (eds) HM 2013, vol 7919. LNCS, pp 198–212Google Scholar
  15. Eastman WL, Evan S, Issacs IM (1964) Bounds for the optimal scheduling of N jobs on M processors. Manag Sci 11:268–279MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fricker C, Gast N, Mohamed H (2012) Mean field analysis for inhomogeneous bike sharing systems. In: Proceedings of the twenty-third international meeting on probabilistic, combinatorial, and asymptotic methods for the analysis of algorithms. DMTCS, pp 365–376Google Scholar
  17. Goldberg D (1989) Genetic algorithm in search, optimization and machine learning. Addison Wesley, Boston, p 36Google Scholar
  18. Kacem I (2013) Genetic algorithms for solving flexible job shop scheduling problems. In: Metaheuristics for production scheduling. ISBN 9781118731598.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118731598.ch2
  19. Kadri AA, Labadi K, Kacem I (2013) An integrated stochastic petri net and GA for dynamic rebalancing in public bicycle-sharing systems. In: 43rd international conference on computer and industrial engineering (CIE43), October 16–18, 2013, vol 2. Hong Kong, pp 1304–1311Google Scholar
  20. Kadri AA, Labadi K, Kacem I (2015) An integrated petri net and genetic algorithm based approach for performance optimization of bicycle-sharing systems. Eur J Ind Eng 9(5):638–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kadri AA, Kacem I, Labadi K (2016) A branch-and-bound algorithm for solving the static rebalancing problem in bicycle-sharing systems. Comput Ind Eng 95(2016):41–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaltenbrunner A, Meza R, Grivolla J, Codina J, Banchs R (2010) Urban cycles and mobility patterns: exploring and predicting trends in a bicycle-based public transport system. Pervasive Mob Comput 6:455–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ko CH, Wang SF (2011) Precast production scheduling using multi-objective genetic algorithms. Expert Syst Appl 38(7):8293–8302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Laporte G, Meunier F, Calvo RW (2015) Shared mobility systems. 4OR 13(4):341–360.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-015-0301-z MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Martens K (2007) Promoting bike and ride: the Dutch experience. Transp Res Part A 41:326–338Google Scholar
  26. Meddin R, DeMaio P (2016) The bike sharing world map. http://www.metrobike.net/
  27. Midgley P (2009) The role of smart bike-sharing systems in urban mobility. Journeys 2:23–31Google Scholar
  28. Pan G, Li K, Ouyang A, Li K (2016) Hybrid immune algorithm based on greedy algorithm and delete-cross operator for solving TSP. Soft Comput 20(2):555–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Papadimitriou CH (1977) The Euclidean travelling salesman problem is NP-complete. Theor Comput Sci 4(3):237–244CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Papazek P, Raidl GR, Rainer-Harbach M, Hu B (2013) A PILOT/VND/GRASP hybrid for the static balancing of public bicycle-sharing systems. In: Moreno-Diaz R, Pichler F, Quesada-Arencibia A (eds) EUROCAST, vol 8111. LNCS, pp 372–379Google Scholar
  31. Pucher J, Buehler R, Seinen M (2011) Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies. Transp Res 45(6):451–475Google Scholar
  32. Rainer-Harbach M, Papazek P, Hu B, Raidl GR (2013) Balancing bicycle-sharing systems: a variable neighborhood search approach. In: Middendorf M, Blum C (eds) EvoCOP 2013, vol 7832. LNCS, pp 121–132Google Scholar
  33. Raviv T, Tzur M, Forma I (2013) Static repositioning in a bike-sharing system: models and solution approaches. EURO J Transp Logist 2:187–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Samanlioglu F, Ferrell WG, Kurz ME (2012) An interactive memetic algorithm for production and manufacturing problems modelled as a multi-objective travelling salesman problem. Int J Prod Res 50(20):5671–5682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schulz AS (1996) Scheduling to minimize total weighted completion time: performance guarantees of LP-based heuristics and lower bounds. In: Proceedings of the 5th IPCO conference, pp 301–315Google Scholar
  36. Shaheen SA, Stacey G, Hua Z (2010) Bike sharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia past, present, and future. J Transp Res Board 2143:159–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sharma G, Abbas S, Gupt V (2012) Solving transportation problem with the various method of linear programming problem. Asian J Curr Eng Maths 1(3):81–83Google Scholar
  38. Shu J, Chou M, Liu Q, Teo CP, Wang IL (2013) Models for effective deployment and redistribution of bicycles within public bicycle-sharing systems. Oper Res 61(6):1346–1359MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. Vogel P, Greisera T, Mattfeld D (2011) Understanding bike-sharing systems using data mining: exploring activity patterns. 14th EWGT, 26th MEC, 1st RH, Procedia Soc Behav Sci 20:514–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université de Lorraine, LCOMS EA 7306, UFR MIMMetzFrance
  2. 2.ECAM-EPMICergy-PontoiseFrance

Personalised recommendations