Constraints

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 318–348 | Cite as

Balancing bike sharing systems with constraint programming

Application

Abstract

Bike sharing systems need to be properly rebalanced to meet the demand of users and to operate successfully. However, the problem of Balancing Bike Sharing Systems (BBSS) is a demanding task: it requires the design of optimal tours and operating instructions for relocating bikes among stations to maximally comply with the expected future bike demands. In this paper, we tackle the BBSS problem by means of Constraint Programming (CP). First, we introduce two different CP models for the BBSS problem including two custom branching strategies that focus on the most promising routes. Second, we incorporate both models in a Large Neighborhood Search (LNS) approach that is adapted to the respective CP model. Third, we perform an experimental evaluation of our approaches on three different benchmark sets of instances derived from real-world bike sharing systems. We show that our CP models can be easily adapted to the different benchmark problem setups, demonstrating the benefit of using Constraint Programming to address the BBSS problem. Furthermore, in our experimental evaluation, we see that the pure CP (branch & bound) approach outperforms the state-of-the-art MILP on large instances and that the LNS approach is competitive with other existing approaches.

Keywords

Applications Constraint programming Hybrid meta-heuristics Large neighborhood search Optimization Vehicle routing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Benchimol, M., Benchimol, P., Chappert, B., De la Taille, A., Laroche, F., Meunier, F., & Robinet, L. (2011). Balancing the stations of a self service bike hire system. RAIRO – Operations Research, 45(1), 37–61.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bent, R., & Van Hentenryck, P. (2004). A two-stage hybrid local search for the vehicle routing problem with time windows. Transportation Science, 38(4), 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Birattari, M., Yuan, Z., Balaprakash, P., & Stützle, T. (2010). F-Race and iterated F-Race: An overview. Experimental methods for the analysis of optimization algorithms, pp. 311–336.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chemla, D., Meunier, F., & Calvo, R.W. (2013). Bike sharing systems: Solving the static rebalancing problem. Discrete Optimization, 10(2), 120–146.CrossRefMathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Contardo, C., Morency, C., & Rousseau, L.M. (2012). Balancing a Dynamic Public Bike-Sharing System. Tech. Rep. CIRRELT-2012-09. Montreal: CIRRELT. Submitted to Transportation Science.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dell’Amico, M., Hadjicostantinou, E., Iori, M., & Novellani, S. (2014). The bike sharing rebalancing problem: mathematical formulations and benchmark instances. Omega, 45(0), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dell’Amico, M., Hadjicostantinou, E., Iori, M., & Novellani, S. (2014). The bike rebalancing problem - benchmark collection. Available from http://www.or.unimore.it/BRP/brp.html.
  8. 8.
    Di Gaspero, L., Rendl, A., & Urli, T. (2013). Constraint-based approaches for balancing bike sharing systems. In CP 2013, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, (pp. 758–773). Springer.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Di Gaspero, L., Rendl, A., & Urli, T. (2013). A hybrid aco+cp for balancing bicycle sharing systems. In Hybrid Metaheuristics, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 198–212). Springer.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gecode Team (2014). Gecode: generic constraint development environment. Available from http://www.gecode.org.
  11. 11.
    Kilby, P., & Shaw, P. (2006). Vehicle routing In Rossi, F., Beek, P.v., Walsh, T. (Eds.), Handbook of constraint programming, chap. 23, (pp. 799–834). New York: Elsevier Science Inc.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kloimüllner, C., & Rainer-Harbach, M. (2014). Citybike Wien instances for Balancing Bike Sharing Systems. . Available from https://www.ads.tuwien.ac.at/w/Research/Problem_Instances.
  13. 13.
    Rainer-Harbach, M., Papazek, P., Hu, B., & Raidl, G.R. (2013). Balancing bicycle sharing systems: A variable neighborhood search approach In Middendorf, M., & Blum, C. (Eds.), Evolutionary computation in combinatorial optimization, lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 7832, (pp. 121–132). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Raviv, T., Tzur, M., & Forma, I.A. (2013). Static repositioning in a bike-sharing system: models and solution approaches. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, 2, 187–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rousseau, L.M., Gendreau, M., & Pesant, G. (2002). Using constraint-based operators to solve the vehicle routing problem with time windows. Journal of Heuristics, 8(1), 43–58.CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rudloff, C., & Lackner, B. (2014). Modeling demand for bicycle sharing systems - neighboring stations as a source for demand and a reason for structural breaks. In TRB 93rd Annual Meeting 2014.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schuijbroek, J., Hampshire, R., & van Hoeve, W.J. (2013). Inventory rebalancing and vehicle routing in bike sharing systems: Tech. Rep. 2013-E1, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shaw, P. (1998). Using Constraint Programming and Local Search Methods to Solve Vehicle Routing Problems In Maher, M.J., & Puget, J.F. (Eds.), Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming - CP98, 4th International Conference, Pisa, Italy, October 26-30, 1998, Proceedings, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1520, (pp. 417–431): Springer.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Urli, T. (2013). Balancing bike sharing systems (BBSS): instance generation from the CitiBike NYC data. Tech. Rep., University of Udine. arXiv:1312.3971.
  20. 20.
    Urli, T. (2013). CitiBike NYC Instance Generator. Available from https://bitbucket.org/tunnuz/citibike-nyc-instance-generator.
  21. 21.
    Urli, T. (2013). CitiBike NYC Instances from September 2013. Available from https://bitbucket.org/tunnuz/citibike-nyc-sept-13.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DIEGMUniversity of UdineUdineItaly
  2. 2.NICTA and Monash University, School of ITCaulfield EastAustralia
  3. 3.Austrian Institute of Technology, Dynamic Transportation SystemsViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations