Timetabling with passenger routing

Abstract

Customer-oriented optimization of public transport needs data about the passengers in order to obtain realistic models. Current models take passengers’ data into account by using the following two-phase approach: In a first phase, routes for the passengers are determined. In a second phase, the actual planning of lines, timetables, etc., takes place using the knowledge on which routes passengers want to travel from the results of the first phase. However, the actual route a passenger will take strongly depends on the timetable, which is not yet known in the first phase. Hence, the two-phase approach finds non-optimal solutions in many cases. In this paper we study the integrated problem of determining a timetable and the passengers’ routes simultaneously. We investigate the computational complexity of the problem and present solution approaches which are tested on close-to-real-world data.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Anhalt J (2012) Eine iterative Heuristik für aperiodische Fahrplangestaltung mit OD-Paaren. Master’s thesis, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (in German)

  2. Bellare M, Goldwasser S, Lund C, Russel A (1993) Efficient probabilistically checkable proofs and applications to approximation. In: STOC ’93 Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing. ACM, New York, USA, pp 294–304

  3. Borndörfer R, Grötschel M, Pfetsch ME (2007) A column-generation approach to line planning in public transport. Transp Sci 41(1):123–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Borndörfer R, Grötschel M, Pfetsch ME (2008) Models for line planning in public transport. In: Hickman M, Mirchandani P, Voß S (eds) Computer-aided systems in public transport, vol 600., Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systemsSpringer, Berlin, pp 363–378

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Dollevoet T, Huisman D (2011) Fast heuristics for delay management with passenger rerouting. Tech rep. Econometric Institute, Erasmus University Rotterdam

  6. Dollevoet T, Huisman D, Schmidt M, Schöbel A (2012) Delay management with re-routing of passengers. Transp Sci 46(1):74–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Feige U (1998) A threshold of ln n for approximating set cover. J ACM 45:634–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fischetti M, Monaci M (2009) Light robustness. In: Ahuja RK, Möhring R, Zaroliagis C (eds) Robust and online large-scale optimization., Lecture note on computer scienceSpringer, New York, pp 61–84

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Fischetti M, Salvagnin S, Zanette A (2009) Fast approaches to improve the robustness of a railway timetable. Transp Sci 43:321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Garey M, Johnson D (1979) Computers and intractability—a guide to the theory of NP-completeness. Freeman, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  11. Goerigk M, Schöbel A (2010) An empirical analysis of robustness concepts for timetabling. In: Erlebach T, Lübbecke M (eds) Proceedings of ATMOS, OASIcs, vol 14. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, pp 100–113

  12. Goerigk M, Schöbel A (2012) Improving the modulo simplex algorithm for large-scale periodic timetabling. Computc Oper Res. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2012.08.018

  13. Gurobi Optimizer (2011). http://www.gurobi.com/. Gurobi Optimizer Version 4.5.1, Houston, Gurobi Optimization Inc., Texas

  14. Kinder M (2008) Models for periodic timetabling. Master’s thesis, Technische Universität, Berlin

  15. Krasemann J (2012) Design of an effective algorithm for fast response to the rescheduling of railway traffic during disturbances. Transp Res Part C 20:62–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Liebchen C (2006) Periodic timetable optimization in public transport. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität, Berlin, Published by dissertation.de.

  17. Liebchen C, Lübbecke M, Möhring R (2009) The concept of recoverable robustness, linear programming recovery, and railway applications. In: Ahuja RK, Möhring R, Zaroliagis C (eds) Robust and online large-scale optimization. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Liebchen C, Proksch M, Wagner FH (2008) Performance of algorithms for periodic timetable optimization. In: Fandel G, Trockel W, Hickman M, Mirchandani P, Voß S (eds) Computer-aided systems in public transport, vol 600., Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systemsSpringer, Berlin, pp 151–180

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Lindner T (2000) Train schedule optimization in public rail transport. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Braunschweig

  20. LinTim - Integrated optimization in public transportation (2011). http://lintim.math.uni-goettingen.de. Accessed 09 Nov 2011

  21. Lübbe J (2009) Passagierrouting und Taktfahrplanoptimierung. Master’s thesis, Technische Universität Berlin (in German)

  22. Lusby R, Larsen J, Ehrgott M, Ryan D (2011) Railway track allocation: models and methods. OR Spectr 33:843–883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nachtigall K (1998) Periodic network optimization and fixed interval timetables. Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt. Institut für Flugführung, Braunschweig. Habilitationsschrift

  24. Nachtigall K, Opitz J (2008) Solving periodic timetable optimisation problems by modulo simplex calculations. In: Fischetti M, Widmayer P (eds) Proceedings of ATMOS. Schloss Dagstuhl - Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Germany

  25. Nemhauser GL, Wolsey LA (1988) Integer and combinatorial optimization. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Odijk MA (1996) A constraint generation algorithm for the construction of periodic railway timetables. Transp Res Part B 30(6):455–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Odijk MA (1998) Railway timetable generation. Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft

  28. Peeters L (2003) Cyclic railway timetable optimization. Ph.D. thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam

  29. Pfetsch M, Borndörfer R (2006) Routing in line planning for public transport. In: Haasis HD, Kopfer H, Schönberger J (eds) Operations Research Proceedings 2005, vol 2005. Springer, Berlin, pp 405–410

  30. Rockafellar RT (1984) Network flows and monotropic optimization. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schmidt M (2012) Integrating routing decisions in network problems. Ph.D. thesis, Institute for Numerical and Applied Mathematics, Georg-August-University Göttingen

  32. Schmidt M (2012) Line planning with equilibrium routing. Tech rep, Institut für Numerische und Angewandte Mathematik, Georg-August Universität Göttingen

  33. Schmidt M (2013) Simultaneous optimization of delay management decisions and passenger routes. Public Transp 5:125–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Schmidt M (2014) Integrating routing decisions in public transportation problems, optimization and its applications. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Schmidt M, Schöbel A (2010) The complexity of integrating routing decisions in public transportation models. In: Erlebach T, Lübbecke M (eds) Proceedings of ATMOS, OASIcs, vol 14. Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, pp 156–169

  36. Schöbel A (2006) Optimization in public transportation. Stop location, delay management and tariff planning from a customer-oriented point of view. Optimization and its applications. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schöbel A (2012) Line planning in public transportation: models and methods. OR Spectr 34(3):491–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Schöbel A, Kratz A (2009) A bicriteria approach for robust timetabling. Lect Notes Comput Sci 5868:119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Schöbel A, Scholl S (2006) Line planning with minimal travel time. In: 5th Workshop on Algorithmic Methods and Models for Optimization of Railways, no. 06901 in Dagstuhl Seminar Proceedings

  40. Serafini P, Ukovich W (1989) A mathematical model for periodic scheduling problems. SIAM J Discret Math 2:550–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Siebert M, Goerigk M (2013) An experimental comparison of periodic timetabling models. Comput Oper Res 40(10):2251–2259

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We want to thank the LinTim team and in particular Jennifer Anhalt for providing data and computing the numerical results. We also acknowledge the helpful comments of the anonymous referees and associate editor.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie Schmidt.

Additional information

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7-PEOPLE-2009-IRSES) under grant number 246647 and the New Zealand Government (project OptALI).

Appendix

Appendix

Theorem 1 TTwR is strongly NP-hard even if all OD-pairs have the same origin.

Proof

We show this by reduction from the strongly NP-complete decision problem Set Cover (Garey and Johnson 1979) defined as follows: Given \(P=\{p_1,\ldots ,p_m\}\), a set of subsets \(Q=\{q^1,\ldots , q^n\}\) with \(q^j\subset P\) and a natural number \(K\), decide whether there is a subset \(Q'\subset Q\) with \(|Q'|\le K\) such that for every \(p_i\in P\) there is at least one \(q^j\in Q'\) such that \(p_i\) is contained in \(q^j\).

Let \((P,Q,K)\) be an instance of Set Cover with \(P=\{p_1,\ldots ,p_m\}\) and \(Q=\{q^1,\ldots , q^n\}\). Without loss of generality we assume that \(K< n\). Based on \(P\) and \(Q\) we construct an instance of TTwR in the following way:

We represent the elements \(p_i\in P\) by OD-pairs \((u,v_i)\) with passenger numbers \(w_{uv_i}:=K+1\).

The sets \(q^j\in Q\) are represented by a gadget consisting of three trains \((\mathrm{tr}^j)^1\), \((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2\) and \((\mathrm{tr}^j)^3\), six stations \(s_1,s^j_2,s^j_3,s^j_4, s^j_5,s^j_6\) (where \(s_1\) is the same station for all OD-pairs) and an OD-pair \((u,v^j)\) with \(u:=s_1\) and \(v^j:=s^j_5\) and \(w_{uv^j}:=1\), in the way depicted in Fig. 4.

The square nodes are the departure and arrival events where the train names are omitted in the node labels for the sake of a compact representation. The origin and destination events are represented by ovals. The dotted lines are the origin and destination activities, the solid lines represent driving and waiting activities, transfer activities are represented by dashed lines. The gray line indicates where it is possible to leave this gadget.

Fig. 4
figure4

The gadget \(g^j\) representing a set \(q^j\) in the reduction from Set Cover to TTwR in the proof of Theorem 1

For every \(p_i\in q^j\) we introduce a train \(\mathrm{tr}_i^j\) running from \(s_3^j\) to a station \(v_i\) and connect \(((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s^j_3-\mathrm{Arr})\) to a departure event \((\mathrm{tr}_{i}^j-s^j_3-\mathrm{Dep})\) by a transfer activity with upper and lower bound \(u_{((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s^j_3-\mathrm{Arr}),(\mathrm{tr}_{i}^j-s^j_3-\mathrm{Dep})}:=0\) and \(l_{((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s^j_3-\mathrm{Arr}),(\mathrm{tr}_{i}^j-s^j_3-\mathrm{Dep})}:=0\). \((\mathrm{tr}_{i}^j-s^j_3-\mathrm{Dep})\) is connected to the arrival event of train \(\mathrm{tr}_{i}^j\) in \(v_i\) by a driving activity \(a\) with upper and lower bound \(l_a:=0\), \(u_a:=0\).

See Fig. 5 (in combination with Fig. 4) for an example of the construction for an instance of Set Cover with \(P=\{1,2,3,4\}\) and \(Q=\{\{2,3,4\},\{1,4\},\{2,3\}\}\). The square nodes are the departure and arrival events. The origin and destination events are represented by ovals. The dotted lines are the origin and destination activities, the solid lines represent driving and waiting activities, transfer activities are represented by dashed lines. The nodes \(g^j\) represent the gadgets from Fig. 4.

Fig. 5
figure5

Example for the construction of the event-activity network in the proof of Theorem 1

Summarizing, our instance \(I\) of TTwR is defined by the following input, which defines an EAN \(N\) with upper and lower bounds \(l,u\) and a set of OD-pairs \(\mathcal {OD}\):

  • a set of stations \(S=\{s_1\}\cup \{s_2^j,s_3^j,s_4^j,s_5^j:j=1,\ldots ,n\}\cup \{v_i:i=1,\ldots ,m\}\),

  • a set of trains \(\mathrm{TR}=\{(\mathrm{tr}^j)^1,(\mathrm{tr}^j)^2,(\mathrm{tr}^j)^3:j=1,\ldots ,n\}\cup \{\mathrm{tr}_i^j:p_i\in q^j\}\) where \((\mathrm{tr}^j)^1\) run on the paths \((s_2^j,s_5^j)\), \((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2\) run on \((s_1,s_2^j,s_3^j,s_4^j,s_5^j)\), \((\mathrm{tr}^j)^3\) run on \((s_1,s_4^j)\) and \(\mathrm{tr}_i^j\) run on \((s_3^j,v_i)\).

  • transfers

    $$\begin{aligned} \mathcal {C}&= \{((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2,(\mathrm{tr}^j)^1,s_2^j), ((\mathrm{tr}^j)^1,(\mathrm{tr}^j)^2,s_5^j), ((\mathrm{tr}^j)^3,(\mathrm{tr}^j)^2,s_4^j): j=1,\ldots ,n\}\\&\cup \{((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2,\mathrm{tr}_i^j,s_3^j):p_i\in q^j\} \end{aligned}$$
  • a lower bound \(l_{((\mathrm{tr}^j)^1-s^j_2-\mathrm{Dep},(\mathrm{tr}^j)^1-s^j_5-\mathrm{Arr})}=1\) on driving activities \(((\mathrm{tr}^j)^1-s^j_2-\mathrm{Dep},(\mathrm{tr}^j)^1-s^j_5-\mathrm{Arr})\) for \(j=1,\ldots ,n\) and lower bounds \(l_a:=0\) on all other activities. The upper bounds are \(u_a=1\) for

    $$\begin{aligned} a\in \{&((\mathrm{tr}^j)^1-s^j_2-\mathrm{Dep},(\mathrm{tr}^j)^1-s^j_5-\mathrm{Arr}),\\&((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s^j_2-\mathrm{Dep},(\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s^j_3-\mathrm{Arr}), \\&((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s^j_4-\mathrm{Dep},(\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s^j_5-\mathrm{Arr}): j=1,\ldots ,n\} \end{aligned}$$

    and \(u_a:=0\) otherwise.

  • The set of OD-pairs is \(\mathcal {OD}=\{(u,v^j):j=1,\ldots ,n\}\cup \{(u,v_i):i=1,\ldots ,m\}\) with \(u:=s_1\) and \(v^j:=s_5^j\). The weights are \(w_{uv^j}=1\) and \(w_{uv_i}=K+1\).

We show that there is a solution \((\pi ,\mathcal {R})\) to the constructed instance \(I\) with \(c_{\mathrm{TTwR}}(\pi ,\mathcal {R})\le K\) if and only if there is a subset \(Q'\) solving the Set Cover problem.

We observe that if for an OD-pair \((u,v_i)\) there is a gadget \(g^j\) such that \(u-{\mathrm{org}}\) is connected to \(g^j\) and there is a length of \(0\) assigned to \(((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s_2^j-\mathrm{Dep},(\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s_3^j-\mathrm{Arr})\), the OD-pair will arrive at its destination in time \(0\) while if there is no such structure, there will be a contribution of \(n+1\) to the objective function. Thus, in a feasible solution, for every OD-pair \((u,v_i)\) there must be at least one gadget \(g^j\) such that \((\mathrm{tr}_i^j-s_3^j-\mathrm{Dep})\) is connected to \(g^j\) and there is a length of \(0\) assigned to \(((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s_2^j-\mathrm{Dep},(\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s_3^j-\mathrm{Arr})\). Note that in this case it follows that the length of \(((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s_4^j-\mathrm{Dep},(\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s_5^j-\mathrm{Arr})\) is \(1\), hence \(c_{\mathrm{TTwR}}(\pi ,P^j)=1\) for the corresponding timetable \(\pi \) and any path \(P^j\) chosen for OD-pair \((u,v^j)\).

We conclude that \(Q'\) is a solution to the considered instance of Set Cover if and only if assigning a length of \(1\) to \(((\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s_2^j-\mathrm{Dep},(\mathrm{tr}^j)^2-s_3^j-\mathrm{Arr})\) for all \(j\) with \(q_j\in C'\) and a length of \(0\) otherwise leads to a solution to the constructed instance of TTwR with solution value \(\le \)K. \(\square \)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmidt, M., Schöbel, A. Timetabling with passenger routing. OR Spectrum 37, 75–97 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00291-014-0360-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Timetabling
  • Routing
  • Complexity
  • Integer programming