Fixed‐route taxi system: route network design and fleet size minimization problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This paper introduces the taxi route network design problem (TXRNDP) for a fixed‐route taxi service operating in Iran and, in similar form, in various other developing countries. The service operates fairly similar to regular transit services in that vehicles are only permitted to follow a certain predetermined route on the network. The service is provided with small size vehicles and main features are that vehicles only depart if full and that there are no intermediate boarding stops. In Iran the service attracts a high modal share but requires better coordination which is the main motivation for the present study. We develop a mathematical programming model to minimize the total travel time experienced by passengers while constraining the number of taxi lines, the trip transfer ratio and the length of taxi lines. A number of assumptions are introduced in order to allow finding an exact rather than heuristic solution. We further develop a linear programming solution to minimize the number of taxis required to serve the previously found fixed‐route taxi network. Results of a case study with the city of Zanjan, Iran, illustrate the resulting taxi flows and suggest the capability of the proposed model to reduce the total travel time, the total waiting time and the number of taxi lines compared to the current taxi operation. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".