4.6 Article

Bike-sharing systems rebalancing considering redistribution proportions: A user-based repositioning approach

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2022.128409

Keywords

Bike -sharing system; User -based repositioning; Bi-level programming model; Incentivization; Sustainable transport

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper proposes a user-based repositioning method to address the imbalance in bike inventory in bike-sharing systems. The results show that this method is remarkably effective in improving the bike inventory balance and the station's turnover rate.
Bike-sharing systems have become an indispensable transportation mode due to the environmental friendliness and shareability in the sustainable cities development process. However, the asymmetry of people's travel patterns during the morning and evening rush hours has contributed to the imbalance in bike inventory. Consequently, station rentals and returns require redistribution to address the rebalancing of bikes. In this paper, a user-based repositioning method through a bi-level programming model is proposed. With the objective of minimizing the repositioning workload, the upper-level model yields redistribution proportions that enable the balance between rentals and returns at the station. In addition, aiming at maximum user profit, the lower-level model calculates a redistribution matrix between station pairs and provides recommended stations for users. Finally, three levels of evaluation indicators for the bike-sharing system, operators, and users are presented. The results indicate that the proposed userbased repositioning is remarkably effective in improving the bike inventory balance and the station's turnover rate. This study provides a novel idea for the bike-sharing repositioning problem and contributes to the improvement of urban transportation.(c) 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available