4.3 Article

Automatic bike sharing system planning from urban environment features

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/21680566.2023.2226347

关键词

Bike sharing; urban planning; traffic prediction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The planning process for bike sharing systems is complex and requires knowledge of urban mobility patterns and local features. Dynamic rebalancing of bike sharing systems is expensive, making correct planning critical for economic viability. This study designs an automated planning pipeline to place stations in an area without direct knowledge of demand.
The planning process for bike sharing systems is often complex, involving multiple stakeholders and several considerations: finding hotspots in the potential demand, and dimensioning the system, requires an intimate knowledge of urban mobility patterns and specific local features of the city. The significant costs associated with dynamic rebalancing of bike sharing systems, i.e. with moving bikes across the city to correct the demand imbalance and ensure that they are available where and when they are needed, make correct planning even more critical for the economic viability of the system. In this work, we consider urban environment data from multiple sources and different cities in Europe and the United States to design an automated planning pipeline to place stations in an area with no direct knowledge of the demand. The first step in the planning is to build models of activity patterns and correlate them with features of the urban environment such as land use and mass transit availability; these statistical models can then be used to expand an existing network or even create an entirely new one in a different city. A use case in New York City shows that our system can effectively plan a bike sharing system expansion, providing a valuable first step for the planning process and allowing system designers to identify gaps in existing systems and the locations of potential demand hotspots.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据