Advertisement

Minimizing the waiting time for a one-way shuttle service

  • Laurent Daudet
  • Frédéric MeunierEmail author
Article

Abstract

Consider a terminal in which users arrive continuously over a finite period of time at a variable rate known in advance. A fleet of shuttles has to carry them over a fixed trip. What is the shuttle schedule that minimizes their waiting time? This is the question addressed in the present paper. We consider several versions that differ according to whether the shuttles come back to the terminal after their trip or not, and according to the objective function (maximum or average of the waiting times). We propose efficient algorithms with proven performance guarantees for almost all versions, and we completely solve the case where all users are present in the terminal from the beginning, a result which is already of some interest. The techniques used are of various types (convex optimization, shortest paths, ...). The paper ends with numerical experiments showing that most of our algorithms behave also well in practice.

Keywords

Convex optimization Shortest paths Timetabling Transportation Waiting time 

Mathematics Subject Classification

MSC 90B35 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the reviewers for their comments, which helped improve the paper. They are also grateful to Eurotunnel for its explanations about the operation of the tunnel and the terminals, and for the data it provided.

References

  1. Barbosa, L. C., & Friedman, M. (1978). Deterministic inventory lot size models—A general root law. Management Science, 24(8), 819–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrena, E., Canca, D., Coelho, L., & Laporte, G. (2014). Exact formulations and algorithm for the train timetabling problem with dynamic demand. Computers & Operations Research, 44, 66–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cacchiani, V., Caprara, A., & Toth, P. (2008). A column generation approach to train timetabling on a corridor. 4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research, 6(2), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cacchiani, V., Caprara, A., & Toth, P. (2010). Non-cyclic train timetabling and comparability graphs. Operations Research Letters, 38(3), 179–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cai, X., Goh, C. J., & Mees, A. (1998). Greedy heuristics for rapid scheduling of trains on a single track. IIE Transactions, 30(5), 481–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caprara, A., Fischetti, M., & Toth, P. (2002). Modeling and solving the train timetabling problem. Operations Research, 50(5), 851–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cordone, R., & Redaelli, F. (2011). Optimizing the demand captured by a railway system with a regular timetable. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 45(2), 430–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diewert, W. E. (1981). Alternative characterizations of six kinds of quasiconcavity in the nondifferentiable case with applications to nonsmooth programming. In S. Schaible & W. T. Ziemba (Eds.), Generalized concavity in optimization and economics (pp. 51–93). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dooly, D. R., Goldman, S. A., & Scott, S. D. (1998). TCP dynamic acknowledgment delay (extended abstract): Theory and practice. In Proceedings of the thirtieth annual ACM symposium on Theory of Computing (pp. 389–398). ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Ilani, H., Shufan, E., Grinshpoun, T., Belulu, A., & Fainberg, A. (2014). A reduction approach to the two-campus transport problem. Journal of Scheduling, 17(6), 587–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ingolotti, L., Lova, A., Barber, F., Tormos, P., Salido, M. A., & Abril, M. (2006). New heuristics to solve the CSOP railway timetabling problem. In International conference on industrial, engineering and other applications of applied intelligent systems (pp. 400–409). Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Kroon, L., & Peeters, L. (2003). A variable trip time model for cyclic railway timetabling. Transportation Science, 37(2), 198–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kroon, L., Huisman, D., Abbink, E., Fioole, P.-J., Fischetti, M., Maróti, G., et al. (2009). The new Dutch timetable: The OR revolution. Interfaces, 39(1), 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lehoux-Lebacque, V., Brauner, N., Finke, G., & Rapine, C. (2007). Scheduling chemical experiments. In 37th international conference on computers and industrial engineering, (CIE37).Google Scholar
  15. Liebchen, C. (2003). Finding short integral cycle bases for cyclic timetabling. In European symposium on algorithms (pp. 715–726). Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Liebchen, C., & Möhring, R. (2002). A case study in periodic timetabling. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 66(6), 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Little, J. D. C, & Graves, S. C. (2008). Little’s law. In Building intuition (pp. 81–100). Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Nachtigall, K., & Voget, S. (1996). A genetic algorithm approach to periodic railway synchronization. Computers & Operations Research, 23(5), 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Serafini, P., & Ukovich, W. (1989). A mathematical model for periodic scheduling problems. SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics, 2(4), 550–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Voorhoeve, M. (1993). Rail scheduling with discrete sets. Unpublished report, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CERMICSUniversité Paris EstMarne-la-Vallée CedexFrance

Personalised recommendations