Competitive EV charging station location with queues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electric vehicle (EV) public charging infrastructure planning faces significant challenges in competitive markets, where multiple service providers affect congestion and user behavior. This work extends existing modeling frameworks by incorporating the presence of competitors' stations and more realistic queueing systems. First, we analyze three finite queueing systems, M/M/1/K, M/M/s/K, and M/Er/s/K, with varying numbers of servers (charging outlets) and service time distributions, deriving analytic expressions for user behavior metrics. Second, we embed the queueing-based user behavior model into a bilevel program, where the upper level locates new charging stations to maximize accessibility (throughput), and the lower level captures users' station choices via a user equilibrium. Third, we apply a reformulation from competitive congested user-choice facility location models to approximately solve the bilevel problem and introduce a surrogate-based heuristic to enhance scalability. Fourth, we showcase our methodology on a real-world case study of an urban area in Montreal (Canada), offering managerial insights into how user-choice behavior assumptions and competition affect throughput and location decisions. The results demonstrate that our model yields (re)location strategies that outperform the existing network. More broadly, this approach provides a tool for incorporating charging service quality-through queueing metrics-and existing competition into station planning.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".