, Volume 99, Issue 1, pp 39–57 | Cite as

Predicting critical conditions in bicycle sharing systems

  • Luca Cagliero
  • Tania Cerquitelli
  • Silvia Chiusano
  • Paolo Garza
  • Xin Xiao


Bicycle sharing systems are eco-friendly transportation systems that have found wide application in Smart urban environments. Monitoring and analyzing the occupancy levels of the system’s stations is crucial for guaranteeing the quality of the offered service. Advanced data mining solutions tailored to bicycle sharing data analysis are needed to support system managers to react to critical situations (e.g., lack of parked bicycles at a station) that can yield service disruption. This paper presents STation Occupancy Predictor (STOP), a data mining framework to predicting the occupancy levels (i.e., critical or non-critical) of the stations in the near future through Bayesian and associative classifiers. The prediction is made based on the current and past station occupancy values and on the temporal information associated with the predicted time instant. A classification model per station is generated on the collected data to support domain experts in understanding the underlying events. The model allows predicting short-term station occupancy levels and characterizing system usage to support planning maintenance activities in the medium term as well. As a case study, STOP has been thoroughly evaluated on real data acquired from the bicycle sharing system of New York City. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the STOP system.


Urban data mining Classification Bike sharing system 

Mathematics Subject Classification



  1. 1.
    Agrawal R, Imielinski T (1993) Swami: mining association rules between sets of items in large databases. ACM SIGMOD 1993:207–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baralis E, Chiusano S, Garza P (2008) A lazy approach to associative classification. IEEE TKDE 20(2):156–171Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang CC, Lin CJ (2011) LIBSVM: a library for support vector machines. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 2:27:1–27:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chourabi H, Nam T, Walker S, Gil-Garcia J, Mellouli S, Nahon K, Pardo T, Scholl HJ (2012) Understanding smart cities: an integrative framework. In: System Science (HICSS), 45th Hawaii international conference on, pp 2289–2297Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Christopoulou E, Ringas D, Stefanidakis M (2012) Experiences from the urban computing impact on urban culture. In: 16th Panhellenic conference on informatics, pp 56–61Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ciancia V, Latella D, Massink M, Pakauskas R (2015) Exploring spatio-temporal properties of bike-sharing systems. In: Self-adaptive and self-organizing systems workshops (SASOW), IEEE international conference on, pp 74–79Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cohen WW (1995) Fast effective rule induction. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on machine learning, Morgan Kaufmann, pp 115–123Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Etienne C, Latifa O (2014) Model-based count series clustering for bike sharing system usage mining: a case study with the Velib’ system of paris. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 5(3):39:1–39:21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Froehlich J, Neumann J, Oliver N (2008) Measuring the pulse of the city through shared bicycle programs. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on urban, community, and social applications of networked sensing systems (UrbanSense08)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Girardin F, Calabrese F, Fiore FD, Ratti C, Blat J (2008) Digital footprinting: uncovering tourists with user-generated content. IEEE Pervasive Comput 7(4):36–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gruenwald L, Yang H, Sadik MS, Shukla R (2010) Using data mining to handle missing data in multi-hop sensor network applications. MobiDE ’10, pp 9–16Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hasan S, Zhan X, Ukkusuri SV (2013) Understanding urban human activity and mobility patterns using large-scale location-based data from online social media. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international workshop on urban computing, pp 6:1–6:8Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jordan MI, Bishop CM (1996) Neural networks. ACM Comput Surv 28(1):73–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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. Pervas Mob Comput 6(4):455–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kong Q, Maekawa T (2014) Reusing training data with generative/discriminative hybrid model for practical acceleration-based activity recognition. Computing 96(9):875–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lewis DD (1998) Naive (Bayes) at forty: the independence assumption in information retrieval. In: Proceedings of the 10th European conference on machine learning (ECML ’98). Springer, London pp 4–15Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quinlan J (1993) C4.5: programs for machine learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rainer-Harbach M, Papazek P, Raidl GR, Hu B, Kloimüllner C (2015) Pilot, grasp, and VNS approaches for the static balancing of bicycle sharing systems. J Glob Optim 63(3):597–629MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sarkar A, Lathia N, Mascolo C (2015) Comparing cities cycling patterns using online shared bicycle maps. Transportation 42(4):541–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Srinivasan S, Ramakrishnan S (2013) A social intelligent system for multi-objective optimization of classification rules using cultural algorithms. Computing 95(4):327–350MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tan PN, Steinbach M, Kumar V (2005) Introduction to data mining. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co. Inc., BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vogel P, Greiser T, Mattfeld DC (2011) Understanding bike-sharing systems using data mining: exploring activity patterns. Proc Soc Behav Sci 20:514–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang IL, Wang CW (2013) Analyzing bike repositioning strategies based on simulations for public bike sharing systems: simulating bike repositioning strategies for bike sharing systems. In: Advanced applied informatics (IIAIAAI), IIAI international conference on, pp 306–311Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yoon JW, Pinelli F, Calabrese F (2012) Cityride: a predictive bike sharing journey advisor. In: 13th IEEE international conference on mobile data management, MDM 2012, Bengaluru, India, 23–26 July 2012, pp 306–311Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang W, Zhang Y, Kim T (2014) Detecting bad information in mobile wireless networks based on the wireless application protocol. Computing 96(9):855–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang Y, Huang Z (2012) Performance evaluation of bike sharing system in wuchang area of wuhan, china. In: China planning conference (IACP), 6th international association for, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zheng F, Webb GI (2006) Efficient lazy elimination for averaged one-dependence estimators. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on machine learning, ICML ’06ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 1113–1120Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zheng F, Webb GI, Suraweera P, Zhu L (2012) Subsumption resolution: an efficient and effective technique for semi-naive bayesian learning. Mach Learn 87(1):93–125MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zheng Y, Capra L, Wolfson O, Yang H (2014) Urban computing: concepts, methodologies, and applications. ACM Trans Intell Syst Technol 5(3):38:1–38:55Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luca Cagliero
    • 1
  • Tania Cerquitelli
    • 1
  • Silvia Chiusano
    • 1
  • Paolo Garza
    • 1
  • Xin Xiao
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Automatica e InformaticaPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations