skip to main content
10.1145/3209811.3209866acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescompassConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Bike Angels: An Analysis of Citi Bike's Incentive Program

Published:20 June 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Bike-sharing systems provide a sustainable and affordable transportation alternative in many American cities. However, they also face intricate challenges due to imbalance, caused by asymmetric traffic demand. That imbalance often-times leads to bike-sharing stations being empty (full), causing out-of-stock events for customers that want to rent (return) bikes at such stations. In recent years, the study of data-driven methods to help support the operation of such system, has developed as a popular research area.

In this paper, we study the impact of Bike Angels, an incentive program New York City's Citi Bike system set up in 2015 to crowd-source some of its operational challenges related to imbalance. We develop a performance metric for both online- and offline-policies to set incentives within the system; our results indicate that though Citi Bike's original offline policy performed well in a regime in which incentives given to customers are not associated to costs, there is ample space for improvement when the costs of the incentives are taken into consideration. Motivated by these findings, we develop several online- and offline- policies to investigate the trade-offs between real-time and offline decision-making; one of our online policies has since been adopted by Citi Bike.

References

  1. Siddhartha Banerjee, Daniel Freund, and Thodoris Lykouris. 2017. Pricing and Optimization in Shared Vehicle Systems: An Approximation Framework. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. ACM, 517--517. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Siddhartha Banerjee, Ramesh Johari, and Carlos Riquelme. 2015. Pricing in ride-sharing platforms: A queueing-theoretic approach. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. ACM, 639--639. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Yiwei Chen and Ming Hu. 2017. Pricing and matching with forward-looking buyers and sellers. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Iris A Forma, Tal Raviv, and Michal Tzur. 2015. A 3-step math heuristic for the static repositioning problem in bike-sharing systems. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 71 (2015), 230--247.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Daniel Freund, Shane G. Henderson, and David B. Shmoys. 2017. Minimizing multimodular functions and allocating capacity in bike-sharing systems. In Integer Programming and Combinatorial Optimization Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), F. Eisenbrand and J. Koenemann (Eds.), Vol. 10328. Springer, 186--198. arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.09304.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Daniel Freund, Ashkan Norouzi-Fard, Alice Paul, Shane G. Henderson, and David B. Shmoys. 2016. Data-Driven Rebalancing Methods for Bike-Share Systems. (2016). Working paper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Christine Fricker and Nicolas Gast. 2012. Incentives and regulations in bike-sharing systems with stations of finite capacity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1201.1178 (2012), 2.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Christine Fricker and Nicolas Gast. 2016. Incentives and redistribution in homogeneous bike-sharing systems with stations of finite capacity. Euro journal on transportation and logistics 5, 3 (2016), 261--291.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. David K George. 2012. Stochastic Modeling and Decentralized Control Policies for Large-Scale Vehicle Sharing Systems via Closed Queueing Networks. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Ohio State University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Sin C Ho and WY Szeto. 2014. Solving a static repositioning problem in bike-sharing systems using iterated tabu search. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 69 (2014), 180--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Nanjing Jian, Daniel Freund, Holly M Wiberg, and Shane G Henderson. 2016. Simulation optimization for a large-scale bike-sharing system. In Proceedings of the 2016 Winter Simulation Conference. IEEE Press, 602--613. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Deepak Merugu, Balaji S Prabhakar, and N Rama. 2009. An incentive mechanism for decongesting the roads: A pilot program in bangalore. In Proc. of ACM NetEcon Workshop.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. NYCBS. 2016. Private Communication.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. NYCBS. 2017. Bike Angel Program. https://bikeangels.citibikenyc.comGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. NYCBS. 2017. Citi Bike JSON Feed. https://gbfs.citibikenyc.com/gbfs/en/station_status.jsonGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. NYCBS. 2017. Citi Bike System Data. https://www.citibikenyc.com/system-dataGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Eoin O'Mahony, Shane G. Henderson, and David B. Shmoys. 2016. (Citi)Bike sharing. (2016). working paper.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Eoin O'Mahony and David B Shmoys. 2015. Data Analysis and Optimization for (Citi) Bike Sharing. In Twenty-Ninth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 687--694. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Pulkit Parikh and Satish Ukkusuri. 2014. Estimation of Optimal Inventory Levels at Stations of a Bicycle Sharing System. TRB 94th Annual Meeting (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Tal Raviv and Ofer Kolka. 2013. Optimal inventory management of a bike-sharing station. IIE Transactions 45, 10 (2013), 1077--1093.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Tal Raviv, Michal Tzur, and Iris A Forma. 2013. Static repositioning in a bike-sharing system: models and solution approaches. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics 2, 3 (2013), 187--229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. J. Schuijbroek, R.C. Hampshire, and W.-J. van Hoeve. 2017. Inventory rebalancing and vehicle routing in bike sharing systems. European Journal of Operational Research 257, 3 (2017), 992--1004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Adish Singla, Marco Santoni, Gábor Bartók, Pratik Mukerji, Moritz Meenen, and Andreas Krause. 2015. Incentivizing Users for Balancing Bike Sharing Systems.. In AAAI. 723--729. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. WY Szeto, Ying Liu, and Sin C Ho. 2016. Chemical reaction optimization for solving a static bike repositioning problem. Transportation research part D: transport and environment 47 (2016), 104--135.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ariel Waserhole and Vincent Jost. 2014. Pricing in vehicle sharing systems: optimization in queuing networks with product forms. EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics (2014), 1--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Bike Angels: An Analysis of Citi Bike's Incentive Program

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        COMPASS '18: Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies
        June 2018
        472 pages
        ISBN:9781450358163
        DOI:10.1145/3209811

        Copyright © 2018 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 20 June 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate25of50submissions,50%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader