IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transe/v194y2025ics1366554524004630.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic planning of geo-fenced micro-mobility facilities using reinforcement learning

Author

Listed:
  • Teusch, Julian
  • Saavedra, Bruno Neumann
  • Scherr, Yannick Oskar
  • Müller, Jörg P.

Abstract

The rise of Lightweight Shared Electric Vehicles (LSEVs) like e-scooters and e-bikes marks a shift towards sustainable urban mobility but brings challenges such as cluttering public spaces and distribution issues. Geo-fenced systems have emerged to mitigate these problems by restricting LSEVs to designated areas. However, integrating these infrastructures effectively remains challenging due to regulatory, convenience, and operational hurdles. In this study, we introduce a facility location optimization problem that strategically places Micro-Mobility Service Facilities (MMSFs) that enable charging, parking, and battery swapping of LSEVs. A utility model with benefit and loss functions accounts for the multiple objectives in this problem, including the impact of MMSF placement on service coverage and user convenience as well as financial and logistical costs. This model is uniquely customizable, allowing urban planners to modify the utility function’s parameters to align with specific local priorities and regulatory conditions. To solve this facility location optimization problem, we present a Deep Reinforcement Learning (RL) method that iteratively learns optimal placement strategies for Micro-Mobility Service Facilities by simulating interactions within real-world urban road networks and adapting to user demand patterns, regulatory constraints, and operational efficiencies. Our experiments in Austin and Louisville demonstrate that strategic placement of these facilities leads to substantial enhancements in infrastructure coverage, with improvements in parking demand by up to 163% in Austin and 72% in Louisville. These results underline the role of our approach in fostering more equitable and efficient urban mobility systems, significantly exceeding traditional simulation-based methods in both coverage and operational logistics. In particular, the results based on various budget scenarios reveal that service coverage and accessibility can be improved, with diminishing returns at higher budget levels due to demand saturation.

Suggested Citation

  • Teusch, Julian & Saavedra, Bruno Neumann & Scherr, Yannick Oskar & Müller, Jörg P., 2025. "Strategic planning of geo-fenced micro-mobility facilities using reinforcement learning," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transe:v:194:y:2025:i:c:s1366554524004630
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tre.2024.103872
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1366554524004630
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tre.2024.103872?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hugo Badia & Erik Jenelius, 2023. "Shared e-scooter micromobility: review of use patterns, perceptions and environmental impacts," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(5), pages 811-837, September.
    2. Lin, Jenn-Rong & Yang, Ta-Hui, 2011. "Strategic design of public bicycle sharing systems with service level constraints," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 284-294, March.
    3. Alberica Domitilla Bozzi & Anne Aguilera, 2021. "Shared E-Scooters: A Review of Uses, Health and Environmental Impacts, and Policy Implications of a New Micro-Mobility Service," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Owain James & J I Swiderski & John Hicks & Denis Teoman & Ralph Buehler, 2019. "Pedestrians and E-Scooters: An Initial Look at E-Scooter Parking and Perceptions by Riders and Non-Riders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-13, October.
    5. Sanders, Rebecca L. & Branion-Calles, Michael & Nelson, Trisalyn A., 2020. "To scoot or not to scoot: Findings from a recent survey about the benefits and barriers of using E-scooters for riders and non-riders," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 217-227.
    6. Albiński, Szymon & Fontaine, Pirmin & Minner, Stefan, 2018. "Performance analysis of a hybrid bike sharing system: A service-level-based approach under censored demand observations," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 59-69.
    7. Frade, Ines & Ribeiro, Anabela, 2015. "Bike-sharing stations: A maximal covering location approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 216-227.
    8. Zhao, De & Ong, Ghim Ping, 2021. "Geo-fenced parking spaces identification for free-floating bicycle sharing system," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 49-63.
    9. Current, John & Min, Hokey & Schilling, David, 1990. "Multiobjective analysis of facility location decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 49(3), pages 295-307, December.
    10. Yuanyuan Guo & Linchuan Yang & Wenke Huang & Yi Guo, 2020. "Traffic Safety Perception, Attitude, and Feeder Mode Choice of Metro Commute: Evidence from Shenzhen," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-20, December.
    11. Jessica Schoner & David Levinson, 2013. "Which Station? Access Trips and Bike Share Route Choice," Working Papers 000117, University of Minnesota: Nexus Research Group.
    12. Martina Fazio & Nadia Giuffrida & Michela Le Pira & Giuseppe Inturri & Matteo Ignaccolo, 2021. "Planning Suitable Transport Networks for E-Scooters to Foster Micromobility Spreading," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-18, October.
    13. Kailai Wang & Xiaodong Qian & Dillon Taylor Fitch & Yongsung Lee & Jai Malik & Giovanni Circella, 2023. "What travel modes do shared e-scooters displace? A review of recent research findings," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(1), pages 5-31, January.
    14. Muren, & Li, Hao & Mukhopadhyay, Samar K. & Wu, Jian-jun & Zhou, Li & Du, Zhiping, 2020. "Balanced maximal covering location problem and its application in bike-sharing," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    15. Caggiani, Leonardo & Camporeale, Rosalia & Marinelli, Mario & Ottomanelli, Michele, 2019. "User satisfaction based model for resource allocation in bike-sharing systems," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 117-126.
    16. Ashish Kabra & Elena Belavina & Karan Girotra, 2020. "Bike-Share Systems: Accessibility and Availability," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 3803-3824, September.
    17. Volodymyr Mnih & Koray Kavukcuoglu & David Silver & Andrei A. Rusu & Joel Veness & Marc G. Bellemare & Alex Graves & Martin Riedmiller & Andreas K. Fidjeland & Georg Ostrovski & Stig Petersen & Charle, 2015. "Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning," Nature, Nature, vol. 518(7540), pages 529-533, February.
    18. Schuijbroek, J. & Hampshire, R.C. & van Hoeve, W.-J., 2017. "Inventory rebalancing and vehicle routing in bike sharing systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(3), pages 992-1004.
    19. Maximilian Heumann & Tobias Kraschewski & Tim Brauner & Lukas Tilch & Michael H. Breitner, 2021. "A Spatiotemporal Study and Location-Specific Trip Pattern Categorization of Shared E-Scooter Usage," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-24, November.
    20. Çelebi, Dilay & Yörüsün, Aslı & Işık, Hanife, 2018. "Bicycle sharing system design with capacity allocations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-98.
    21. Zhou, Yaoming & Lin, Zeyu & Guan, Rui & Sheu, Jiuh-Biing, 2023. "Dynamic battery swapping and rebalancing strategies for e-bike sharing systems," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    22. Pearce, Robin H. & Forbes, Michael, 2018. "Disaggregated Benders decomposition and branch-and-cut for solving the budget-constrained dynamic uncapacitated facility location and network design problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(1), pages 78-88.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Qingxin & Ma, Shoufeng & Li, Hongming & Zhu, Ning & He, Qiao-Chu, 2024. "Optimizing bike rebalancing strategies in free-floating bike-sharing systems: An enhanced distributionally robust approach," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    2. Caggiani, Leonardo & Colovic, Aleksandra & Ottomanelli, Michele, 2020. "An equality-based model for bike-sharing stations location in bicycle-public transport multimodal mobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 251-265.
    3. Zhou, Yaoming & Lin, Zeyu & Guan, Rui & Sheu, Jiuh-Biing, 2023. "Dynamic battery swapping and rebalancing strategies for e-bike sharing systems," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    4. Fu, Chenyi & Zhu, Ning & Pinedo, Michael & Ma, Shoufeng, 2025. "Station-based, free-float, or hybrid: An operating mode analysis of a bike-sharing system," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    5. Bruno Albert Neumann-Saavedra & Teodor Gabriel Crainic & Bernard Gendron & Dirk Christian Mattfeld & Michael Römer, 2020. "Integrating Resource Management in Service Network Design for Bike-Sharing Systems," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 1251-1271, September.
    6. Zhang, Yuting & Nelson, John D. & Mulley, Corinne, 2024. "Learning from the evidence: Insights for regulating e-scooters," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 63-74.
    7. Fu, Chenyi & Zhu, Ning & Ma, Shoufeng & Liu, Ronghui, 2022. "A two-stage robust approach to integrated station location and rebalancing vehicle service design in bike-sharing systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(3), pages 915-938.
    8. Dehdari Ebrahimi, Zhila & Momenitabar, Mohsen & Nasri, Arefeh A. & Mattson, Jeremy, 2022. "Using a GIS-based spatial approach to determine the optimal locations of bikeshare stations: The case of Washington D.C," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 48-60.
    9. Nigro, Marialisa & Castiglione, Marisdea & Maria Colasanti, Fabio & De Vincentis, Rosita & Valenti, Gaetano & Liberto, Carlo & Comi, Antonio, 2022. "Exploiting floating car data to derive the shifting potential to electric micromobility," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 78-93.
    10. He, Xiaozhou & Wang, Qingyi, 2024. "A stochastic programming model for free-floating shared bike redistribution considering bike gathering," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    11. Song, Jiatong & Li, Baicheng & Szeto, W.Y. & Zhan, Xingbin, 2024. "A station location design problem in a bike-sharing system with both conventional and electric shared bikes considering bike users’ roaming delay costs," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    12. Levent Çallı & Büşra Alma Çallı, 2024. "Value‐centric analysis of user adoption for sustainable urban micro‐mobility transportation through shared e‐scooter services," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(6), pages 6408-6433, December.
    13. Gu, Wei & Li, Meng & Wang, Chen & Shang, Jennifer & Wei, Lirong, 2021. "Strategic sourcing selection for bike-sharing rebalancing: An evolutionary game approach," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    14. Cloud, Cannon & Heß, Simon & Kasinger, Johannes, 2023. "Shared e-scooter services and road safety: Evidence from six European countries," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    15. Fukushige, Tatsuya & Fitch, Dillon T. & Handy, Susan, 2022. "Can an Incentive-Based approach to rebalancing a Dock-less Bike-share system Work? Evidence from Sacramento, California," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 181-194.
    16. Elżbieta Macioszek & Paulina Świerk & Agata Kurek, 2020. "The Bike-Sharing System as an Element of Enhancing Sustainable Mobility—A Case Study based on a City in Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-29, April.
    17. Mix, Richard & Hurtubia, Ricardo & Raveau, Sebastián, 2022. "Optimal location of bike-sharing stations: A built environment and accessibility approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 126-142.
    18. Colovic, Aleksandra & Prencipe, Luigi Pio & Giuffrida, Nadia & Ottomanelli, Michele, 2024. "A multi-objective model to design shared e-kick scooters parking spaces in large urban areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    19. Huang, Di & Chen, Xinyuan & Liu, Zhiyuan & Lyu, Cheng & Wang, Shuaian & Chen, Xuewu, 2020. "A static bike repositioning model in a hub-and-spoke network framework," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    20. Çelebi, Dilay & Yörüsün, Aslı & Işık, Hanife, 2018. "Bicycle sharing system design with capacity allocations," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 86-98.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transe:v:194:y:2025:i:c:s1366554524004630. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600244/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.