Station Location Optimization for the One-Way Carsharing System: Modeling and a Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carsharing is regarded as a new mode of transportation that can meet the diversity of travel demands. Carsharing systems have different operating modes, and one-way systems are more widely used since cars can be dropped off at any station. However, their planning involves a series of joint decisions regarding the number, size, and location of stations, as well as the fleet size. This paper develops a data-driven mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model for planning one-way carsharing systems that consider the spatial distribution of demand and the interacting decisions between stations. The characteristics of existing stations and their spatiotemporal correlations are an important part of the model. To solve the MILP model, the extension of the Benders decomposition algorithm is adopted. The practicality of the proposed approach is demonstrated in a case study in Beijing, China. The results show that the existing planning of carsharing could result in a serious waste of resources. In contrast, the proposed method can obtain effective results in a reasonable time. The location results corresponding to a different rate of satisfied demand show that increasing the parking spots to improve the interaction between stations can effectively reduce the cost of operations. It should be noted that this paper only considers the benefit of operators. Future works will be carried out to optimize the one-way carsharing system by considering the benefits of operators, as well as the benefits of users and society. In addition, the impact of COVID-19 will be taken into account in future modeling and case studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".