Advertisement

Public Transport

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 341–377 | Cite as

Real-world meeting points for shared demand-responsive transportation systems

  • Paul CzioskaEmail author
  • Ronny Kutadinata
  • Aleksandar Trifunović
  • Stephan Winter
  • Monika Sester
  • Bernhard Friedrich
Original Paper
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

While shared demand-responsive transportation (SDRT) systems mostly operate on a door-to-door policy, the usage of meeting points for customer pick-up and drop-off can offer several benefits, such as fewer stops and less total travelled kilometers. Moreover, real-world meeting points offer a possibility to select only feasible and well-defined locations where safe boarding and alighting are possible. This paper investigates the impact of using such meeting points for the SDRT problem with meeting points (SDRT-MP). A three-step procedure is applied to solve the SDRT-MP. Firstly, the customers are clustered into temporary and spatially similar groups and then the alternative meeting points, for boarding and alighting, are determined for each cluster. Finally, a neighbourhood search algorithm is used to obtain the vehicle routes that pass through all the used meeting points while respecting passengers’ time constraints. The goal is to examine the differences of a real-world meeting point-based system in contrast to a door-to-door service by a simulation with realistic meeting point locations derived from the map data. Although the average passenger travel time is higher due to increased walking and waiting times, the experiment highlights a reduction of operator resources required to serve all customers.

Keywords

Demand-responsive transportation Shared mobility Meeting points 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) through the Research Training Group Social Cars (GRK 1931), the Australian Research Council’s Linkage Projects funding scheme (project number LP120200130), the Universities Australia and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) under the Australia-Germany Joint Research Co-operation Scheme.

References

  1. Aissat K, Oulamara A (2014) Dynamic ridesharing with intermediate locations. In: Computational intelligence in vehicles and transportation systems (CIVTS), 2014 IEEE Symposium on, IEEE, pp 36–42Google Scholar
  2. Aissat K, Oulamara A (2015) Meeting locations in real-time ridesharing problem: a buckets approach. In: Operations research and enterprise systems, Springer, pp 71–92Google Scholar
  3. Aïvodji UM, Gambs S, Huguet MJ, Killijian MO (2016) Meeting points in ridesharing: a privacy-preserving approach. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 72:239–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balardino AF, Santos AG (2016) Heuristic and exact approach for the close enough ridematching problem. In: Hybrid intelligent systems, Springer International Publishing, pp 281–293.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27221-4_24
  5. Baldacci R, Bartolini F, Mingozzi A (2011) An exact algorithm for the pickup and delivery problem with time windows. Oper Res 59(2):414–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bent R, van Hentenryck P (2004) A two-stage hybrid local search for the vehicle routing problem with time windows. Transp Sci 38(4):515–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen W, Mes M, Schutten J, Quint J (2016) A ride-sharing problem with meeting points and return restrictions. BETA Working Paper Series 516. http://doc.utwente.nl/101813/1/wp_516.pdf
  8. Cordeau JF, Laporte G (2007) The dial-a-ride problem: models and algorithms. Ann Oper Res 153(1):29–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-007-0170-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Correa O, Ramamohanarao K, Tanin E, Kulik L (2017) From ride-sourcing to ride-sharing through hot-spots. In: Proceedings of the 2017 MobiQuitous, ACM.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3144457.3144483
  10. Czioska P, Trifunović A, Dennisen S, Sester M (2017) Location- and time-dependent meeting point recommendations for shared interurban rides. J Location Based Serv 11(3–4):181–203.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17489725.2017.1421779 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eser E, Monteil J, Simonetto A (2018) On the tracking of dynamical optimal meeting points. In: Proceedings of the 15th IFAC symposium on control in transportation systemsGoogle Scholar
  12. Giles-Corti B, Vernez-Moudon A, Reis R, Turrell G, Dannenberg AL, Badland H, Foster S, Lowe M, Sallis JF, Stevenson M et al (2016) City planning and population health: a global challenge. The Lancet 388(10062):2912–2924.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30066-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goel P, Kulik L, Ramamohanarao K (2016) Privacy-aware dynamic ride sharing. ACM Trans Spatial Algorithms Syst 2(1):4:1–4:41.  https://doi.org/10.1145/2845080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goel P, Kulik L, Ramamohanarao K (2017) Optimal pick up point selection for effective ride sharing. IEEE Trans Big Data 3(2):154–168.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TBDATA.2016.2599936 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Griswold A (2017) Why it matters that Uber and Lyft are becoming more like public transit. https://web.archive.org/web/20180309071444/https://qz.com/1022789/why-it-matters-that-uber-and-lyft-are-becoming-more-like-public-transit/. Accessed 11 Apr 2018
  16. Häll CH, Lundgren JT, Värbrand P (2008) Evaluation of an integrated public transport system: a simulation approach. Arch Transp 20(1–2):29–46Google Scholar
  17. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hess DB (2012) Walking to the bus: perceived versus actual walking distance to bus stops for older adults. Transportation 39(2):247–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kutadinata R, Thompson R, Winter S (2019) Passenger-freight demand responsive transport services: A dynamic optimisation approach. In: Proceedings of the 26th intelligent transport systems World Congress, to be presentedGoogle Scholar
  20. Li B, Krushinsky D, Reijers H, van Woensel T (2014) The share-a-ride problem: people and parcels sharing taxis. Eur J Oper Res 238(1):31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mageean J, Nelson JD (2003) The evaluation of demand responsive transport services in Europe. J Transp Geogr 11(4):255–270.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6923(03)00026-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martínez LM, Viegas JM, Eiró T (2014) Formulating a new express minibus service design problem as a clustering problem. Transp Sci 49(1):85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Millward H, Spinney J, Scott D (2013) Active-transport walking behavior: destinations, durations, distances. J Transp Geogr 28:101–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Municipality of Braunschweig (2016) Open geodata. License: dl-de/by-2-0. http://www.braunschweig.de/opengeodata
  25. Najmi A, Rey D, Rashidi TH (2017) Novel dynamic formulations for real-time ride-sharing systems. Transp Res Part E: Logist Transp Rev 108:122–140.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2017.10.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Navidi Z, Ronald N, Winter S (2016) Comparing demand responsive and conventional public transport in a low demand context. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on pervasive computing and communication workshops (PerCom Workshops), pp 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1109/PERCOMW.2016.7457089
  27. Nelson JD, Wright S, Masson B, Ambrosino G, Naniopoulos A (2010) Recent developments in flexible transport services. Res Transp Econ 29(1):243–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Parragh SN, Doerner KF, Hartl RF (2008) A survey on pickup and delivery problems. J für Betriebswirtschaft 58(1):21–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rigby M, Winter S (2016) Usability of an opportunistic interface concept for ad hoc ride-sharing. Int J Cartogr 2(2):115–147.  https://doi.org/10.1080/23729333.2016.1145040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rigby M, Krüger A, Winter S (2013) An opportunistic client user interface to support centralized ride share planning. In: Proceedings of the 21st ACM SIGSPATIAL international conference on advances in geographic information systems, ACM, pp 34–43Google Scholar
  31. Rigby M, Winter S, Krüger A (2016) A continuous representation of ad hoc ridesharing potential. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 17(10):2832–2842.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TITS.2016.2527052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ropke S, Cordeau JF (2009) Branch and cut and price for the pickup and delivery problem with time windows. Transp Sci 43(3):267–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ropke S, Pisinger D (2006) An adaptive large neighborhood search heuristic for the pickup and delivery problem with time windows. Transp Sci 40(4):455–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stiglic M, Agatz N, Savelsbergh M, Gradisar M (2015) The benefits of meeting points in ride-sharing systems. Transp Res Part B Methodol 82:36–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2015.07.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang Y, Kutadinata R, Winter S (2019) The evolutionary interaction between taxi-sharing behaviours and social networks. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 119:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Cartography and GeoinformaticsLeibniz Universität HannoverHanoverGermany
  2. 2.Department of Infrastructure EngineeringThe University of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia
  3. 3.Institute of Transportation and Urban EngineeringTechnische Universität BraunschweigBrunswickGermany

Personalised recommendations