Electric Bus Scheduling and Timetabling, Fast Charging Infrastructure Planning, and Their Impact on the Grid: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transit agencies are increasingly embracing electric buses (EB) as an energy-efficient and emission-free alternative to the conventional bus fleets. They are rapidly replacing conventional buses with electric ones. As a result, emerging challenges of electrifying public transportation bus networks in cities should be addressed. Introducing electric buses to the bus transit system would affect the public transit operation planning steps. The steps are network design, timetabling, bus scheduling, and crew scheduling. Regarding the functional and operational differences between conventional buses and electric buses, such stages should be changed and optimized to enhance the level of service for the users while reducing operating costs for service providers. Many mathematical optimization models have been developed for conventional buses. However, such models would not fit the electric buses due to EBs’ limited traveling range and long charging time. Therefore, new mathematical models should be developed to consider the unique features of electric buses. We present a comprehensive literature review to critically review and classify the work done on these topics. This paper compares the studies that have been done in this field and highlight the missing links and gaps in the considered papers, and the potential future studies that could be done. The considered papers cover the integration of timetabling and vehicle scheduling, recharging scheduling planning, and fast charging infrastructure location planning and its impacts on the grid. The main goal of this research is to highlight the research gaps and potential directions for future studies in this domain to encourage more realistic and applicable models and solution approaches for fully electric bus transit systems.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".