International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 10 (2019) 361–374

Contents lists available at GrowingScience

International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations

homepage: www.GrowingScience.com/ijiec

A hybrid algorithm for the multi-depot vehicle scheduling problem arising in public transportation
 

César Augusto Marín Morenoa, Luis Miguel Escobar Falcóna*, Rubén Iván Bolañosa, Anand
Subramanianb, Antonio Hernando Escobar Zuluagac and Mauricio Granada Echeverric

aUniversidad Tecnológica de Pereira – Integra S.A., Colombia

bUniversidade Federal da Paraíba, Brazil
cUniversidad Tecnológica de Pereira, Colombia

CHRONICLE ABSTRACT

Article history: In this article, a hybrid algorithm is proposed to solve the Vehicle Scheduling Problem with
Received December 18 2018 Multiple Depots. The proposed methodology uses a genetic algorithm, initialized with three
Received in Revised Format specialized constructive procedures. The solution generated by this first approach is then refined
January 26 2019
by means of a Set Partitioning (SP) model, whose variables (columns) correspond to the current
Accepted February 3 2019
Available online itineraries of the final population. The SP approach possibly improves the incumbent solution
February 4 2019 which is then provided as an initial point to a well-known MDVSP model. Both the SP and
Keywords: MDVSP models are solved with the help of a mixed integer programming (MIP) solver. The
Vehicle Scheduling algorithm is tested in benchmark instances consisting of 2, 3 and 5 depots, and a service load
Matheuristics ranging from 100 to 500. The results obtained showed that the proposed algorithm was capable
Set Partitioning of finding the optimal solution in most cases when considering a time limit of 500 seconds. The
Tactical Planning methodology is also applied to solve a real-life instance that arises in the transportation system
Bus Rapid Transit in Colombia (2 depots and 719 services), resulting in a decrease of the required fleet size and a
balanced allocation of services, thus reducing deadhead trips.

© 2019 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada

1. Introduction
From a technical point of view, the Operational Planning of public transportation systems includes
scheduling of work shifts for bus drivers, scheduling of preventive maintenance work, scheduling of the
services, as well as personnel allocation for each shift. Recently, this task has involved the control in real
time of the operational system fleet with the incorporation of Communication and Information
Technologies. Each one of the aforementioned problems represents a challenge when they are faced by
the companies. All of these problems have already been studied widely in the specialized literature, and
due to their computational complexity (they are classified as NP-hard), they are usually approached
independently. This work deals with the Multiple Depot Vehicle Scheduling Problem (MDVSP), in
which a set of vehicles must perform a set of trips with a given frequency at specific moments during the
day. When examining the vehicle scheduling literature, we identified several works in the context of
public transportation system. It was verified that applying optimization approaches contributed to the
development of an efficient transportation system, capable of meeting the mobility needs required in
cities Ibarra-Rojas et al. (2015).
* Corresponding author Tel.: +573217938145
E-mail: luismescobarf@utp.edu.co (L. M. Escobar Falcón)

2019 Growing Science Ltd.

doi: 10.5267/j.ijiec.2019.2.002

 
 
362

The creation of itineraries for each vehicle is one of the most complex tasks in transportation planning
and is known to be NP-hard. Despite its difficulty, this has been a problem of great interest given that the
cost represented by the vehicles, either by their acquisition or by use, is one of the highest in the budget
of operation of public transportation systems (Ceder, 2007). The reality of public transportation
companies highlights the importance of efficiently solving the MDVSP, thus motivating the study of new
alternatives that fit the particular environment of each company dedicated to the operation of public
transportation services. However, regardless of the particularities of each scenario, the objective is likely
to be framed in the total fulfillment of itineraries and reduction of costs related to system operation. Each
itinerary or route is a description of the trips that must be done in specific times and areas, satisfying a
frequency according to the conditions of the service and the needs of the mass transportation service
determined by tactical planning. Therefore, the combination of route and departure times is denoted as
service and a group of services in the same area is defined as timetable. The public transportation system
routes are defined by their strategic planning and usually do not have substantial changes in the short and
medium terms.
Each route must be served within a given frequency, at a defined average speed. This must be defined in
the strategic planning of the transportation system, since all these route requirements are defined from
the design of the service network itself and are designed precisely to meet the requirements identified
during the strategic planning. In this work, we propose a matheuristic algorithm to solve an Operational
Planning problem of a Public Transportation System that can be modeled as a MDVSP. The algorithm
was first tested by benchmark instances consisting of 2, 3 and 5 depots, and a service load ranging from
100 to 500. The results obtained show that the proposed algorithm was capable of finding the optimal
solution in most cases when considering a time limit of 500 seconds. We then applied the methodology
to solve a real-life scenario of a Colombian public transportation system involving 2 depots and 719
services, and the results obtained imply in a decrease of the required fleet size and a balanced allocation
of services, thus reducing deadhead trips.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents a literature on the MDVSP, Section
3 formally describes the problem. Section 4 includes the proposed methodology. Section 5 contains the
results of the computational experiments. Section 6 presents the concluding remarks.
2. Literature Review

In this section we review the recent MDVSP literature, briefly describing the corresponding solution
approaches. Huisman et al. (2004) proposed a dynamic model to solve the VSP. The approach addressed
by the authors consists of solving a set of optimization problems in a sequential manner, taking into
account different scenarios in future travel times. During the first phase, trips are assigned to the different
depots (clustering), solving the static problem. Next, in the second stage, a simple VSP is solved
dynamically. The proposed methodology was evaluated in a bus operator company in the Netherlands.
The data set consists of 1,104 trips and four depots. Gintner et al. (2005), considered the MDVSP with
multiple types of vehicles. The authors proposed a two-phase method that provides near-optimal
solutions. The mathematical formulation of the problem is based on a space-time network and a vehicle
is allowed to start from one depot and return to a different one, aiming at minimizing deadhead and stop
times. In practical cases, the number of trips is over a thousand, which is the reason the authors combined
the model of a space-time network with a heuristic approach, in order to solve large problems and add
new practical considerations. Hadjar et al. (2006) proposed a Branch-and-Bound algorithm to solve the
MDVSP, which combines Column Generation (CG), Fixed Variables and Cutting Planes. The authors
studied two mathematical formulations that are based on CG schemes to solve the Lagrange relaxation
of the Linear Programming problem. The algorithm was tested on randomly generated cases as well as
benchmark instances. In addition, they also applied their algorithm on a set of real world instances that
were derived from data belonging to the Montreal Transport Society (MTS). The MTS operates a network
that includes seven depots, 665 bus lines with 380 completion points and 17,037 trips.

 
 C. A. Marín Moreno et al. / International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 10 (2019) 363

In the study conducted by Wang and Shen (2007), a new version of the problem – denoted as VSP with
Route and Fueling Time Constraints (VSPRFTC) – was presented in which they consider electric buses.
This implies taking into account two new constraints: the duration of the route and the time of vehicle
recharging. The authors propose a new mathematical formulation and use of the ant colony algorithm as
a solution method. Laurent and Hao (2009) proposed an iterated local search (ILS) algorithm to solve the
MDVSP. The authors developed a new neighborhood operator called block movement (Block Moves).
The methodology uses a so-called auction algorithm to generate the initial vehicle scheduling. It then
integrates a Two-Step Perturbation mechanism as a diversification procedure. The developed approach
was tested on a set of 30 benchmark MDVSP instances. Hassold and Ceder (2014) presented a
methodology based on a minimum cost network flow model, where the authors dealt with the
heterogeneous fleet VSP (MVT-VSP) to solve a real case in New Zealand and the results showed an
improvement of 15%, in terms of the cost of the vehicle fleet.

By means of a heuristic framework that makes use of a space-time network, the work presented by
Guedes and Borenstein (2015) addressed the heterogeneous fleet MDVSP using truncated column
generation and reduction of the state space. The results obtained were promising and constitute a feasible
alternative to efficiently solve the problem. Shui et al. (2015) put forward a cloning algorithm and two
heuristics of travel time readjustments. The approach obtained small CPU times and the ability to solve
large instances such as the operation of buses in Nanjing, China. Recently, Wen et al. (2016), solved the
VSP involving electric buses denoted as Electric VSP (E-VSP), whose main constraint lies in the buses
driving ranges associated with battery recharging, which can be fully or partially recharged. The
mathematical formulation proposed for the E-VSP involves, in the first step, minimizing the number of
vehicles needed to carry out all scheduled trips (Timetable) and, secondly, minimizing the traveled
distance, which is equivalent to minimizing deadhead trips. The problem was formulated as a mixed
integer programming problem and was solved using an Adaptive Large Neighborhood Search (ALNS)
heuristic. The solution methodology was capable of finding good quality solutions for large size problems
and near-optimal solutions in small cases.

Schöbel (2017) presented an integrated approach in the context of planning process of public
transportation system. The author argues that, instead of optimizing each stage of transportation systems,
it would be more beneficial to consider the entire process in an integrated fashion. To this end, a model
that jointly covers route planning, Timetables and VSP was proposed as well as an iterative heuristic
algorithm. The results obtained were promising and the author listed a series of challenges for future
studies regarding the integrated point of view of optimizing public transportation system planning.

3. Problem description and formulation

In the context of public transportation, the MDVSP can be represented through a set , , … , of trip
timetables that must be performed in a time horizon τ. Each trip is characterized by the time and place
of origin, as well as the destination. Let , , … , be the set of depots and the number of vehicles
located at depot .

A pair of trips , is compatible, if trip can be executed immediately after trip by the same
vehicle. This is possible if the time of trip completion plus the time of empty travel (deadhead) from
to (added with a sufficient safety margin), is less than the start time of trip . The objective of
MDVSP is thus to connect a subset of trips to be performed by a vehicle, starting and ending at the same
depot in such a way that the sum of the total travel costs is minimized. The formulation proposed by
Mesquita and Paixão (1992) can be considered a suitable alternative in our case, mainly because it
contains a polynomial number of variables and constraints. Let , be a directed graph where a
set of vertices 1,2, … , is partitioned into 1,2, … , , which corresponds to trips
, , … , , and a set 1, 2, … , , which refers to depots , , … , . Set
364

contains the arcs , representing the feasible trip pairs , and all the arcs leaving and arriving the
depots , 1 , 1, , for 1,2, … , and 1,2, … , . A cost is associated to each arc,
which estimates the fuel consumption necessary for the deadhead trip from to , and other penalties that
the transportation company intends to apply. The costs associated to the arcs from or to a depot are
denoted as: , 0, 1,2, … , and , ∞, , 1,2, … , , .
In the particular case in which transportation companies seek to simultaneously minimize the size of the
fleet and the costs of deadhead trips, then , , represents the cost of the deadhead trip from
depot to the starting point of the trip (from the place of completion of trip to depot , plus half
the cost incurred by the use of the vehicle belonging to depot .
The MDVSP aims at finding the set of least-cost circuits in such a way that: (i) Each vertex ∈ is
covered exactly once by a circuit, (ii) Each circuit contains exactly one vertex of set and (iii) The
number of circuits that covers vertex 1 must never exceed 1,2, … , .

3.1 Definition of decision variables

The decision variables of the mathematical model proposed by Mesquita and Paixão (1992) are specified
as follows:
1, if trip immediately proceeds trip
0, otherwise

1, if after trip the bus returns to depot

,
0, otherwise

1, if a bus starts a trip from depot

,
0, otherwise

1, if trip is carried out by a vehicle from depot

,
0, otherwise

3.2 Mathematical formulation

, , , , , (1)

subject to

1 1,2, … , (2)

1 1,2, … , (3)

, 1,2, … , (4)

, 0 1,2, … , ; 1,2, … , (5)

, 0 1,2, … , ; 1,2, … , (6)
1 , 1,2, … , ; 1,2, … , (7)

1 1,2, … , (8)

∈ 0,1 , , 1,2, … , ; , , ; , 1,2, … , (9)

 
 C. A. Marín Moreno et al. / International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 10 (2019) 365

∈ 0,1 , 1,2, … , ; 1,2, … , (10)

, (11)

The meaning of the constraints is described as follows:

 Constraints (2) ensure that, for each 1,2, … , ; when finishing trip , the bus must return to a
depot or must start another trip ∈ .
 Constraints (3) assign, for each 1,2, … , , a bus to a trip , either from the depot or from
another trip.
 Constraints (4) enforce that, for 1,2, … , the capacity of a depot must not be violated.
 Constraints (5) impose, for each pair and , the assignment between trip and depot , as long
as trip is the first trip of an itinerary done by a vehicle that starts its service from depot .
 Constraints (6) ensure that, for each pair and , the assignment between trip and depot , as
long as trip is the last trip of an itinerary done by a vehicle that returns to depot .
 Constraints (7) establish that for each pair , ∈ , if a trip is connected directly with trip and
trip is assigned to depot , then, trip is assigned to depot .
 Constraints (8) guarantee that each trip ∈ is assigned exactly to one depot.
 Constraints (9) and (10) define the domain of the decision variables.
 Constraint (11) impose an upper bound on the maximum number of vehicles that is obtained by
a simple constructive procedure as described in Section 4.2.

4. Proposed methodology

This section describes the proposed hybrid algorithm that combines (i) a GA procedure; (ii) a SP
approach; and (iii) a MIP formulation. The GA metaheuristic is based on the methodology presented by
Chu and Beasley (1998), whose initial pool of itineraries is built using different constructive procedures.
The best combination of the itineraries generated while executing the GA is then obtained by the SP
approach which in turn possibly returns an improved solution. Such solution is then provided as a starting
point to a MIP solver which aims at finding an even better solution using the formulation proposed by
Mesquita and Paixão (1992). The algorithm will be referred to as GA+SP+MIP and its basic description
can be seen in Fig. 1.

Genetic
Heuristics
Algorithm

Set Partitioning MIP Solver

(Subramanian, Uchoa, & Ochi, 2013)
Sbest
(Mesquita & Paixão, 1992)

S*

Fig. 1. Methodology.
366

4.1 Constructive Procedures

The three constructive algorithms implemented to generate initial solutions are described as follows.

4.1.1 Clustered Concurrent Scheduler (CCS)

In this procedure, we apply the traditional Concurrent Scheduler method (Dell'Amico et al., 1993) adding
a first clustering stage, that is, the algorithm starts by determining from which depot each of the trips
should be attended. To this end, each trip is assigned in a heuristic fashion taking into account the lowest
value , , as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Clustering of trips for each depot .

The next step is to sort the trips assigned to each depot in ascending order with respect to the start time.
Each itinerary is then generated by only allowing feasible assignments. When the first infeasibility
occurs, the itinerary is completed and assigned to a vehicle of the corresponding depot. The procedure is
repeated until there are no trips to be assigned to each of the clusters (Figure 3).

Fig. 3. Construction of itineraries for each depot’s fleet

In case the least-cost arc that connects a given depot to service runs out of vehicles, the procedure
attempts to reassign such service to the next depot also using the least-cost arc criterion, as shown in Fig.
4. The algorithm terminates when all trips have been assigned.

 
 C. A. Marín Moreno et al. / International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 10 (2019) 367

Fig. 4. Reassignment of trip 13 for fleet availability

4.1.2 Minimal Cost Attention Sequence (MCAS)

The method is based on the construction of a general sequence with all trips , that is, only the nodes of
set are taken into account. The first trip in the sequence corresponds to the one with smaller start time.
The following trips in the sequence are assigned according to the feasible nearest neighbor criterion. In
addition, the terminal node must have at least degree 2 (Jungnickel, 2007). When there are no more
feasible assignments or the minimum degree requirement is not met, the procedure sets the subsequence
as an itinerary. The construction of the general sequence continues with the unassigned trips, taking as a
junction trip the one which has the highest degree of feasible departure. The previous procedure is
repeated until all trips are assigned to the general sequence, as illustrated in Figure 5.

Fig. 5. Sequence generated connecting routes using the nearest neighbor criterion

Finally, the subsequences become supernodes (Figure 6) and the Generalized Assignment Problem
(GAP) is solved in order to relate it to the set of depots, and to have a complete MDVSP solution.
368

Fig. 6. Supernodes corresponding to travel itineraries (GAP)

Fig. 7 shows the GAP solution and the corresponding node decoding.

Fig. 7. Assignment of resolved supernodes

4.1.3 Division of Attention Sequence (DAS)

This algorithm corresponds to an adaptation of the sequence division approach proposed by Prins (2004)
and extended by Liuet al. (2009) for vehicle routing problems. The method starts with a sequence of all
trips sorted in ascending order according to their start time (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Ascending ordered sequence (or any combination of criteria) and its corresponding subgraph

 
 C. A. Marín Moreno et al. / International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 10 (2019) 369

From this sequence, we obtain a subgraph of the original problem and through its exhaustive exploration
one can build a digraph or auxiliary graph with all possible feasible itineraries and sub-itineraries (Fig.
9).

Fig. 9. Subgraph (or auxiliary graph) after removing infeasibilities

Because the problem involves multiple depots, each itinerary is repeated as many times as the number of
depots. The minimum path between the trip that starts earlier in the sequence and the last one in the
digraph, as shown in Fig. 10, yields a MDVSP solution. In this paper, a minimum flow-based
mathematical formulation is employed to determine the shortest path.

Fig. 10. Digraph with all feasible routes and subroutes for each one of the depots.
We now compare the performance of the constructive procedures with the optimal solutions of the
benchmark instances by Fischetti et al. (1999). Each figure provides the results for the alternatives of 2
(Fig. 11), 3 (Fig. 12) and 5 depots (Fig. 13).
2 Depots
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2-100-01
2-100-02
2-100-03
2-100-04
2-100-05
2-100-06
2-100-07
2-100-08
2-100-09
2-100-10

2-200-01
2-200-02
2-200-03
2-200-04
2-200-05
2-200-06
2-200-07
2-200-08
2-200-09
2-200-10

2-300-01
2-300-02
2-300-03
2-300-04
2-300-05
2-300-06
2-300-07
2-300-08
2-300-09
2-300-10

2-400-01
2-400-02
2-400-03
2-400-04
2-400-05
2-400-06
2-400-07
2-400-08
2-400-09
2-400-10

2-500-01
2-500-02
2-500-03
2-500-04
2-500-05
2-500-06
2-500-07
2-500-08
2-500-09
2-500-10

Gap CCS Gap MCAS Gap DAS

Fig. 11. Gap constructive procedures vs. optimal solution (2 Depots)

370

3 Depots
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
3-100-01
3-100-02
3-100-03
3-100-04
3-100-05
3-100-06
3-100-07
3-100-08
3-100-09
3-100-10
3-200-01
3-200-02
3-200-03
3-200-04
3-200-05
3-200-06
3-200-07
3-200-08
3-200-09
3-200-10
3-300-01
3-300-02
3-300-03
3-300-04
3-300-05
3-300-06
3-300-07
3-300-08
3-300-09
3-300-10
3-400-01
3-400-02
3-400-03
3-400-04
3-400-05
3-400-06
3-400-07
3-400-08
3-400-09
3-400-10
Gap CCS Gap MCAS Gap DAS

Fig. 12. Gap constructive procedures vs. optimal solution (3 Depots)

5 Depots
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
5-100-01
5-100-02
5-100-03
5-100-04
5-100-05
5-100-06
5-100-07
5-100-08
5-100-09
5-100-10

5-200-01
5-200-02
5-200-03
5-200-04
5-200-05
5-200-06
5-200-07
5-200-08
5-200-09
5-200-10

5-300-01
5-300-02
5-300-03
5-300-04
5-300-05
5-300-06
5-300-07
5-300-08
5-300-09
5-300-10
Gap CCS Gap MCAS Gap DAS

Fig. 13. Gap constructive procedures vs. optimal solution (5 Depots)

It is important to mention that during the execution of the tests, it was observed that the constructive
procedures did not appear to dominate each other for the distinct alternatives. In fact, they are
complementary to obtain good quality results when considering the different cases of the existing
benchmark instances.

4.2 Genetic Algorithm (GA)

After building several initial solutions with the constructive procedures, a population-based metaheuristic
could be an interesting strategy to benefit from the generated schedules. Once the initial population is
created (Fig. 14), one applies a procedure that seeks to quickly obtain an UB from the fleet required to
meet the services. This procedure simply consists in sorting all the services in ascending order
according to their start time, and constructing itineraries consecutively with this sequence.

 
 C. A. Marín Moreno et al. / International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 10 (2019) 371

Clustered
Concurrent Random Solutions
Scheduler Chu-Beasley GA
(CCS)

Minimal Cost
Attention
Sequence
(MCAS)
Initial
Population
Division of Attention
Sequence (DAS)

Upper Bound (Fleet)

Fig. 14. Generating the initial population.

In our case, we chose to implement a Chu-Beasley-based Genetic Algorithm as a population-based

metaheuristic. An elitist acceptance criterion is used, and when it is possible to update the population,
only the worst solution is modified.

The coding of the solutions that represent the population is composed of two vectors. The first
corresponds to the order in which the services are added to the itineraries, and the second indicates the
vehicles to which the services of the first vector are assigned, as proposed in Park (2001). The criterion
adopted for assigning trips to itineraries is improved using a trip insertion operator to each of the
itineraries under construction.

Coding the solutions in vectors facilitates the application of recombinations. In this work, the five forms
of recombination presented in Leung et al. (2001) are used.

4.3 Set Partitioning (SP)

After the GA terminates, a SP-based procedure is applied as an attempt to further improve the incumbent
solution. In this phase, a solution is built from the best itineraries of the final population obtained by the
GA. The strategy consists of partitioning each solution (each one is a set of itineraries) and performing
the optimal reconstruction of a solution for the MDVSP. In Subramanian et al. (2013) a compact model
of SP is proposed, oriented to vehicle routing problems with a homogeneous fleet. In this work, such
model is applied to the MDVSP as described next. Let be the set of all possible itineraries assigned to
the different depots and ⊆ the set of itineraries that contains the trip or service. Define as the
binary variable associated with the itinerary ∈ with associated cost . Moreover, let ⊆ be the
set of itineraries assigned to depot ∈ and let be the number of buses or available vehicles at depot
. The formulation can be written as follows:
(12)
∈

subject to

1 ∀ ∈ (13)
∈

∀ ∈ (14)
∈
∈ 0,1 , ∀ ∈ (15)
372

Objective function (12) minimizes the sum of the costs of choosing the best combination of itineraries.
Constraints (13) guarantee that service is served exactly by one itinerary . Constraints (14) ensure that
the selected itineraries do not exceed the maximum number of vehicles available at each depot.
Enumerating all elements of set would result in a prohibitively large number of itineraries. Therefore,
we decided to limit the size of by only considering the set of solutions associated with the final
population obtained by the GA procedure. We will thus obtain a compact model that will contain about
thousands of itineraries for the largest cases. As a result, the model can be easily solved with the well-
known MIP solver CPLEX® Version 12.7.
4.4 Initial primal bound and MIP-based solution
The best solution found during the SP procedure is provided as an initial primal solution to the the MIP
model proposed by Mesquita and Paixão (1992), which in turn is the last step of our methodology. It
was observed that providing an initial solution substantially helped improving the efficiency of the
model. However, as it still may be hard to determine the optimal solution, especially for large-size
instances, a time limit was imposed to avoid prohibitively long runs.

5. Computational Results
The proposed algorithm was implemented in C ++ ® running Ubuntu Linux 16.04.03 of 64-bits LTS
operating system and CPLEX® 12.7 as a MIP solver. The experiments were performed on an Intel®
Core ™ i5-4570 CPU of 3.20 GHz × 4, and 8 GB of RAM. A time limit of 500 seconds was imposed to
the MIP model presented by Mesquita and Paixão (1992). In order to evaluate the performance of the
developed approach, we made use of the benchmark instances introduced by Fischetti et al. (1999). These
test cases are composed of 10 instances for each set. The sets combine 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500
services with 2 depots. For 3 and 5 depots they handle a maximum of 400 and 300 services, respectively.
In Tables 1, 2 and 3, the 10 instances of each benchmark set are grouped and the corresponding averages
are presented for each set (OPT, optimal value of the objective function). Also, we compare the average
number of vehicles (NV) as well as the CPU times in seconds (T (s)) and the Gaps found by the different
stages of the proposed methodology.

Table 1
Consolidated (average) of instances groups with 2 depots
Fischetti et al. (1999) GA+SP+MIP
Instances
OPT NV TS Gap GA Gap SP Gap MIP NV T(s)
2-100 309258,4 27,9 0,6 2,46% 1,21% 0,00% 27,9 2,345
2-200 606028,1 54,8 23,3 3,12% 1,13% 0,00% 54,8 30,014
2-300 833318,7 75,5 84,16 3,35% 1,77% 0,00% 75,5 130,189
2-400 1115927,9 101,4 297,94 3,11% 1,98% 0,00% 101,4 361,886
2-500 1373243,4 125,1 1160,73 3,94% 1,89% 0,19% 125,1 481,911

Table 2
Aggregate results for the benchmark instances with 3 depots
Fischetti et al. (1999) GA+SP+MIP
Instances
OPT NV TS Gap GA Gap SP Gap MIP NV T(s)
3-100 309642,3 28,2 2,8 2,65% 1,19% 0,00% 28 39,051
3-200 584726 53,6 72,74 3,49% 1,36% 0,01% 53,6 233,718
3-300 831986,7 76,5 339,84 3,91% 1,99% 0,02% 76,5 472,109
3-400 1084336,6 99,9 3177,63 3,54% 2,13% 0,40% 99,9 847,763

Table 3
Aggregate results for the benchmark instances with 5 depots
Fischetti et al. (1999) GA+SP+MIP
Instances
OPT NV TS Gap GA Gap SP Gap MIP NV T(s)
5-100 320728,9 29,5 22,49 2,95% 1,40% 0,00% 29,5 249,597
5-200 587420,1 54,3 341,43 3,66% 1,76% 0,08% 54,3 461,199
5-300 827447 76,8 3130,49 4,28% 2,20% 0,61% 76,8 499,16

 
 C. A. Marín Moreno et al. / International Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations 10 (2019) 373

In addition to achieving optimality in most of the test cases, the proposed algorithm also finds the optimal
number of vehicles required in all instances, thus showing the efficiency of our approach for the
benchmark instances considered. We therefore believe that the algorithm can be extended to a real life
instance in the context of mass public transportation.
5.1 Application in a Real Case
The results for the real world scenario obtained by both the constructive procedures and the GA+SP+MIP
algorithm are shown in Table 4 and Fig. 15(a) and Fig. 15(b). The real test case derived from operations
that arise in a business day is composed of two depots and 719 services that must be served by the
available fleet of 37 vehicles (available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327288601_Study_Case_MDVSP_Integra_SA_Pereira_Colombia).

Table 4
Comparative table constructives real case, business day
Real Case NV
Manual Scheduling CCS MCAS DAS
719 Trips – 2 Depots
36 66 35 66

As illustrated in Table 4, by only applying the constructive procedures, we were capable of obtaning a
reduction of one vehicle on the fleet necessary to meet all services on a business day. In later stages, a
decrease in the number of vehicles was not achieved, given that the demand is very high. However, the
GA+SP+MIP algorithm decreases deadhead trips, finding a uniform distribution on the allocation of
services to buses. In Fig. 15 and Fig. 16, where the vehicle scheduling is presented using 35 vehicles; the
x-axis represents the time of the day, the y-axis contains each schedule, and the numbers in the lines
correspond to the “ids” of the trips or services assigned to the vehicles. Each service has a starting time
and a completion time, which are the points between the ids. The deadhead trips or idle times for the
vehicles are highlighted in green, showing how the methodology achieves a more balanced solution (with
cost 16208, Fig. 16) when compared with the initial solution in Fig. 15 (with cost 20240).
S_0: MDVSP_Integra; N.Vehicles: 35; Cost: 20240 BKS Instance: MDVSP_Integra; N.Vehicles: 35; Cost: 16208
700 701 308 309 310 311 121 122 123 274 275 276 277 144
35 35
422 423 296 297 257 258 359 360 361 14 405 20 21 194 195 543 373 579 713 441 442
34 34
401 402 140 141 142 143 144 338 339 340 124 188 128 58 59 60 652 638 639 640 641 642 302
33 33
39 40 41 579 713 441 442 422 423 424 534 648 706 707 708 63 168 675 296 297 298 299 233 147 148
32 32
359 360 361 562 563 564 565 49 50 51 426 685 649 670 671 165 372 353 547 548 549 550 72 146
31 31
121 122 123 274 275 276 277 278 209 294 295 52 610 159 160 650 651 519 520 167 374 375 376 377 378 379
30 30
444 445 12 282 214 55 56 57 430 431 518 329 416 67 68 657 658 659 35
29 681 682 591 592 593 594 595 501 502 503 231 29
181 182 664 665 666 343 88 89 90 576 577 135 562 563 564 565 300 301 661
28
317 318 319 574 575 576 577 135 5 6 7 286 287 28
151 152 153 382 213 428 429 516 517 22 672 673 523 254 255 526 527 232 104
27
338 339 340 124 557 558 559 560 561 524 694 695 696 27
317 318 319 320 321 322 243 539 540 541 542 330 331 139 596 597 598 599 600
26 111 112 113 683 496 497 498 499 500 544 283 284 657 658 659 26
111 112 113 683 629 451 244 389 432 433 578 415 66 5 308 309 310 311 36 37
25
293 294 295 269 270 271 272 273 545 42 43 44 45 46 232 233 25
491 663 183 307 383 240 241 242 269 270 271 62 435 436 676 677 678 716 717 718
10 11 446 608 684 685 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 372 546 547 255 256 298 299 697 24
24 625 626 627 628 157 158 575 93 393 394 655 29 30 31 464 465 234 106 107 304
588 589 590 609 610 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 23
23 643 644 268 471 647 407 496 497 498 499 500 544 332 417 418 7 8 9 103 660 303
279 280 281 282 125 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 504 505 698 22
Vehicle ID

22 2 3 4 384 385 537 538 91 92 392 25 137 253 43 44 45 46 528 552 553 38
235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 548 549 550 551 73 74 21
21 79 80 81 82 362 363 364 387 388 23 24 691 692 693 171 172 714 715 585 586 587
Vehicle ID

663 183 184 185 186 187 188 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 169 170 525 526 527 528 552 553 20
20 150 588 589 590 533 609 704 705 245 246 371 166 27 28 140 141 142 143 278 260 261
643 644 645 646 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 578 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 660 19
19 529 530 531 532 342 667 189 452 453 390 391 434 136 252 42 228 229 336 337 583 584
120 380 381 154 155 156 157 158 686 687 688 689 690 521 522 523 114 115 116 117 118 300 301 661 18
18 1 293 210 211 212 684 215 366 369 370 653 654 618 619 486 487 488 145 623 291 149
571 572 573 13 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 234 302 17
17 507 508 509 53 86 87 325 326 327 328 351 352 96 354 355 356 357 358 566 601 602
181 182 664 665 666 343 344 345 346 347 220 221 222 480 481 482 483 712 580 581 582 312 313 662 16
16 279 280 281 470 54 630 631 476 477 478 479 709 710 333 334 335 230 504 505 698 315
208 209 210 211 320 321 322 323 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 464 465 145 146 314 315 316 15
15 265 266 267 645 646 365 190 130 131 132 272 457 458 459 524 694 695 696 697 262 263
625 626 627 628 629 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 460 461 462 463 32 33 34 289 290 699 14
14 264 571 401 402 403 404 703 323 129 632 633 634 635 636 637 656 285 286 287 288 569 570
529 530 531 532 533 534 54 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 399 400 622 623 291 149 13
13 443 10 11 446 608 427 514 191 454 455 456 223 64 65 460 461 462 463 32 33 567 568
466 467 468 469 470 471 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 285 8 9 288 35 36 37 38 12
12 11 605 606 607 447 448 449 450 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 283 284 69 70 71 489 490 180
150 151 152 153 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 93 94 95 353 354 355 356 357 358 566 567 568 303
11 10 39 40 41 83 84 406 686 687 688 689 690 521 522 138 114 115 116 117 118 175 105 292
78 79 80 81 82 362 363 364 365 190 367 368 369 370 371 166 167 168 675 676 677 678 175 176 177 569 570
10 9 506 235 236 237 238 239 512 513 18 19 192 193 133 134 437 438 439 440 173 174 679 603 604
605 606 607 447 448 449 450 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 486 487 488 489 490 178 179 180
9 8 208 681 682 15 16 17 324 367 368 411 412 413 414 674 169 501 502 503 231 551 73 74 75
506 507 508 509 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 348 349 350 351 352 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 624 304
8 7 466 467 468 469 341 127 474 475 557 558 559 560 561 545 546 170 525 256 257 258 289 290 699
443 444 445 12 403 14 15 16 17 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 583 584 585 586 587
7 6 119 554 555 556 510 511 85 668 669 591 592 593 594 595 26 711 484 485 620 621 259 178 179
119 554 555 556 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 173 174 679 680 106 107 108
6 5 109 492 493 494 495 702 126 386 515 574 247 248 249 250 251 97 98 99 100 101 102 176 76 77
47 48 49 50 51 52 53 535 536 87 88 89 90 91 92 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 640 641 642 75 76 77
5 4
110 305 306 184 185 186 187 216 217 218 219 348 349 350 94 95 395 396 397 398 399 400 622 177
491 492 493 494 495 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 484 485 620 621 259 260 261 262 263 120 380 381 154 155 156 344 345 346 347 220 221 222 480 481 482 483 712 580 581 582 312 313 662
4 3
264 265 266 267 268 83 84 85 86 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 136 137 138 139 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 78 700 701 425 535 536 408 409 410 61 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 314 316
3 2
0 1 2 3 4 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 691 692 693 171 172 714 715 716 717 718 47 48 572 573 13 125 472 473 161 162 163 164 273 224 225 226 227 6 419 420 421 34 680 624 108
2 1
109 110 305 306 307 341 342 667 189 366 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 147 148 292
1 0
0 05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00
05:00 06:00 07:00 08:00 09:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00

Time of the day Time of the day

Fig. 15. Initial solution
Fig. 16. Algorithm (GA+SP+MIP) impact in the
resulting assignment
Therefore, it is possible to conclude that the minimum number of vehicles were used and that the
deadhead trips were reduced significantly.

6. Concluding Remarks
In this paper, we proposed a hybrid methodology that involves constructive algorithms, a metaheuristic,
a Set Partitioning approach and a MIP-based procedure. Such methodology is able to solve test cases of
considerable size both in the benchmark instances and in a real case, within reasonable CPU times. The
 374

MDVSP approach, combined with techniques commonly used in vehicle routing problems, presents an
adequate development and offers an acceptable scalability when the number of depots and trips increase.
Future work may include the development of parallel algorithms so as to mitigate the excessive CPU
times that may arise in complex single-thread algorithms, such as the one described in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the support of Integra S.A., COLCIENCIAS, SENA, the Master Program in Electrical
Engineering and the Doctoral Program in Engineering of the Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira.
References
Ceder, A. (2007). Public transit planning and operation: Modeling, practice and behavior. CRC press.
Chu, P. C., & Beasley, J. E. (1998). A genetic algorithm for the multidimensional knapsack problem. Journal of heuristics,
4(1), 63-86.
Dell'Amico, M., Fischetti, M., & Toth, P. (1993). Heuristic algorithms for the multiple depot vehicle scheduling problem.
Management Science, 39(1), 115-125.
Fischetti, M., Lodi, A., & Toth, P. (1999). A branch-and-cut algorithm for the multiple depot vehicle scheduling problem.
Dipartimento di Elittronica e Informatica, Università di Padova, Italy.
Gintner, V., Kliewer, N., & Suhl, L. (2005). Solving large multiple-depot multiple-vehicle-type bus scheduling problems in
practice. OR Spectrum, 27(4), 507-523.
Guedes, P. C., & Borenstein, D. (2015). Column generation based heuristic framework for the multiple-depot vehicle type
scheduling problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 90, 361-370.
Hadjar, A., Marcotte, O., & Soumis, F. (2006). A branch-and-cut algorithm for the multiple depot vehicle scheduling
problem. Operations Research, 54(1), 130-149.
Hassold, S., & Ceder, A. A. (2014). Public transport vehicle scheduling featuring multiple vehicle types. Transportation
Research Part B: Methodological, 67, 129-143.
Huisman, D., Freling, R., & Wagelmans, A. P. (2004). A robust solution approach to the dynamic vehicle scheduling
problem. Transportation Science, 38(4), 447-458.
Ibarra-Rojas, O. J., Delgado, F., Giesen, R., & Muñoz, J. C. (2015). Planning, operation, and control of bus transport
systems: A literature review. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 77, 38-75.
Jungnickel, D. (2007). Graphs, networks and algorithms (Vol. 5). Springer Science & Business Media.
Laurent, B., & Hao, J. K. (2009). Iterated local search for the multiple depot vehicle scheduling problem. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 57(1), 277-286.
Leung, T. W., Yung, C. H., & Troutt, M. D. (2001). Applications of genetic search and simulated annealing to the two-
dimensional non-guillotine cutting stock problem. Computers & industrial engineering, 40(3), 201-214.
Liu, S., Huang, W., & Ma, H. (2009). An effective genetic algorithm for the fleet size and mix vehicle routing problems.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 45(3), 434-445.
Mesquita, M., & Paixão, J. (1992). Multiple depot vehicle scheduling problem: A new heuristic based on quasi-assignment
algorithms. In Computer-Aided Transit Scheduling (pp. 167-180). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Munoz, J. C., & Paget-Seekins, L. (Eds.). (2016). Restructuring public transport through Bus Rapid Transit: An
international and interdisciplinary perspective. Policy Press.
Park, Y. B. (2001). A hybrid genetic algorithm for the vehicle scheduling problem with due times and time deadlines.
International Journal of Production Economics, 73(2), 175-188.
Prins, C. (2004). A simple and effective evolutionary algorithm for the vehicle routing problem. Computers & Operations
Research, 31(12), 1985-2002.
Schöbel, A. (2017). An eigenmodel for iterative line planning, timetabling and vehicle scheduling in public transportation.
Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 74, 348-365.
Shui, X., Zuo, X., Chen, C., & Smith, A. E. (2015). A clonal selection algorithm for urban bus vehicle scheduling. Applied
Soft Computing, 36, 36-44.
Subramanian, A., Uchoa, E., & Ochi, L. S. (2013). A hybrid algorithm for a class of vehicle routing problems. Computers &
Operations Research, 40(10), 2519-2531.
Wang, H., & Shen, J. (2007). Heuristic approaches for solving transit vehicle scheduling problem with route and fueling
time constraints. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 190(2), 1237-1249.
Wen, M., Linde, E., Ropke, S., Mirchandani, P., & Larsen, A. (2016). An adaptive large neighborhood search heuristic for
the electric vehicle scheduling problem. Computers & Operations Research, 76, 73-83.
© 2019 by the authors; licensee Growing Science, Canada. This is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-
BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).