Urban Bike Lane Planning with Bike Trajectories: Models, Algorithms, and a Real-World Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem definition: We study an urban bike lane planning problem based on the fine-grained bike trajectory data, which are made available by smart city infrastructure, such as bike-sharing systems. The key decision is where to build bike lanes in the existing road network. Academic/practical relevance: As bike-sharing systems become widespread in the metropolitan areas over the world, bike lanes are being planned and constructed by many municipal governments to promote cycling and protect cyclists. Traditional bike lane planning approaches often rely on surveys and heuristics. We develop a general and novel optimization framework to guide the bike lane planning from bike trajectories. Methodology: We formalize the bike lane planning problem in view of the cyclists’ utility functions and derive an integer optimization model to maximize the utility. To capture cyclists’ route choices, we develop a bilevel program based on the Multinomial Logit model. Results: We derive structural properties about the base model and prove that the Lagrangian dual of the bike lane planning model is polynomial-time solvable. Furthermore, we reformulate the route-choice-based planning model as a mixed-integer linear program using a linear approximation scheme. We develop tractable formulations and efficient algorithms to solve the large-scale optimization problem. Managerial implications: Via a real-world case study with a city government, we demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed algorithms and quantify the trade-off between the coverage of bike trips and continuity of bike lanes. We show how the network topology evolves according to the utility functions and highlight the importance of understanding cyclists’ route choices. The proposed framework drives the data-driven urban-planning scheme in smart city operations management.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".