Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322

www.elsevier.com/locate/trb

A comparative analysis of bus transit

vehicle scheduling models
a,* b,1 a
Ali Haghani , Mohamadreza Banihashemi , Kun-Hung Chiang
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
b
A/E Group, Inc., Geometric Design Lab, Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center, FHWA, USA
Received 4 January 2001; received in revised form 17 December 2001; accepted 31 December 2001

Abstract

This paper presents a comparative analysis of three vehicle scheduling models. These models include a
multiple depot and two single depot vehicle scheduling models. The multiple depot model is originally
proposed by two of the authors in an earlier paper. The two single depot models are derived from the
multiple depot model and are in fact special cases of this model. This analysis is performed by solving the
blocking problem for the operation of the Mass Transit Administration (MTA) in the city of Baltimore,
Maryland. Results obtained from the three models are compared with each other and the original MTA
schedule. These comparisons show that, under certain conditions, a single depot vehicle scheduling model
performs better. A sensitivity analysis with respect to two important parameters is also performed and the
results are reported. Results indicate that deadhead speed is an important parameter in dealing with the
scheduling problems.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bus transit; Scheduling; Single depot; Multiple depot; Optimization

1. Introduction

Transit scheduling usually consists of four interrelated components: (1) design of routes; (2)
creation of timetables; (3) scheduling vehicles to trips; and (4) assignment of drivers. The third and
fourth parts are the most critical issues faced by transit agencies since, collectively, they constitute

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-301-405-1963; fax: +1-301-405-2585.
E-mail addresses: haghani@eng.umd.edu (A. Haghani), mohamadreza.banihashemi@fhwa.dot.gov (M. Banihas-
hemi).
1
Tel.: +1-202-493-3334.

0191-2615/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 9 1 - 2 6 1 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 0 7 - 3
302 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322

the largest cost elements in meeting public transportation needs. Fortunately, by taking advantage
of up-to-date computer technology most of these components can be effectively addressed. Having
said this, it is recognized that some elements of transit scheduling will always be subject to the
‘‘experiential rule’’ of scheduling.
Real world transit scheduling is very complicated. The large numbers of trips, links, and paths
to be considered rapidly increase the number of variables and constraints in any model developed.
The transit scheduling problem belongs to the general class of vehicle scheduling problems. The
general vehicle scheduling problems are problems in which a number of vehicles starting from one
or more depot have to collectively visit a number of demand points and then return to the depot
from which they start. Each demand point has a definitive time of service. These problems in
general are very hard to solve and belong to a class of problems referred to as NP-hard. This
means that the computational burden to solve these problems increases exponentially as the
problem size increases. In general, these problems can be solved using heuristics.
The considerations involved in scheduling problems include the objective function, operational
constraints and specific restrictions. There are some differences across public transit agencies
because the policies of different agencies are not the same. However, in any scheduling problem,
the following conditions should be satisfied:

(1) An objective function given in advance is optimized.

(2) Each trip is run by exactly one vehicle.
(3) Each block of trips starts and ends at the same depot.
(4) Each depot has a given maximum number of vehicles (capacity).
(5) All operational constraints, including any restriction on the total time a vehicle spends away
from the depot, are satisfied.

This paper focuses on the operation of the Mass Transit Administration (MTA) in the city of
Baltimore. Based on the January 1998 schedule this system had 5650 trips for weekdays that were
run on 53 routes. In January 1998, 620 vehicles housed in four depots were used to provide all
services necessary to complete the trips in the schedule. The overall cost of this schedule converted
into time in minutes is summarized as follows. The main components of the operating costs are
fuel, labor and maintenance costs.

(1) Total operating cost in minutes: 542,243 min.

(2) Total vehicle fixed cost in minutes: 186,000 min (the fixed cost of using vehicles is converted
into equivalent operational time to be used in the objective function. This time is 300 min per
vehicle. For details of this conversion see Banihashemi, 1998).
(3) Total deadhead and layover time: 78,577 min.

Haghani and Banihashemi (2002) proposed an innovative Multiple Depot Vehicle Scheduling
with Route Time Constraints (MDVSRTC) model to solve bus transit vehicle scheduling prob-
lems. In this paper we derive a Single Depot Vehicle Scheduling with Route Time Constraints
(SDVSRTC) model to solve the same problem. This model is a special case of the multiple depot
formulation and is applied using two different sets of input data. The first contains the original
trips assigned to each of the depots by the MTA. This application is referred to as the
 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322 303

SDVSRTC1. In the second application, the trips allocated to each depot are obtained from the
solution of the MDVSRTC. This application is referred to as the SDVSRTC2.
The results obtained from SDVSRTC1, SDVSRTC2, MDVSRTC and the original MTA
schedule are then compared and analyzed. In both SDVSRTC and MDVSRTC models, the
processes for developing and solving the MTA problems require establishing important para-
meters. The values of these parameters thus become important factors affecting the final solution.
These important parameters include: (1) the fixed cost of one vehicle; (2) the deadhead speed; (3)
the maximum allowed block time (MBT); and (4) the number of available vehicles for each depot.
The sensitivity of the models with respect to two of these parameters (2 and 3) is analyzed in detail
in this paper. A more detailed sensitivity analysis with respect to all parameters is provided in
Banihashemi (1998).
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides a brief review of the relevant literature. In
Section 3 the results of the solution of the problem using different approaches are summarized and
compared. Section 4 presents the sensitivity analysis, and finally Section 5 discusses the conclu-
sions and further research directions.

2. Literature review

Gavish and Shifler (1978) defined bus scheduling as a problem encountered by large bus
companies operating in metropolitan areas. This problem deals with the scheduling of buses to
serve thousands of relatively short trips. The time tables for those trips reflect the varying demand
for transportation and are planned in advance. The objective is to schedule buses to trips in such a
way that the cost incurred by the fleet size and the deadheading is minimized while the operational
constraints are satisfied. They present a solution algorithm for solving this problem.
A single depot vehicle scheduling problem contains the basic structure of the scheduling
problem. Suppose there are n trips to be served by vehicles starting from a single depot. Every trip
has a starting point, an ending point, a starting time, and an ending time. The trips could be
served by the same vehicle if the starting time of one trip is greater than the ending time of another
trip plus the travel time between these two trips. The objective of the problem is to find the
minimum number of the vehicles to serve all the trips.
A network could be constructed to represent this problem: each trip represented by a node, and
an arc (i; j) exists if the ending time of trip i plus the travel time between ending point of trip i and
starting point of trip j is less than the starting time of trip j. Then the problem is to find the
minimum number of paths in this network that cover all the nodes. The path here is treated as a
vehicle scheduled to start from the depot and end at the depot. This problem could be solved as a
minimum cost flow problem.
Sometimes, if deadhead time is considered in the objective function, the problem can be solved
using a two-stage procedure. Bodin and Golden (1981) suggested an approach for solving this
kind of problem. Basically, the single depot scheduling problem can be solved easily. However,
when other constraints such as the route time constraints that make the problem more realistic are
introduced, it becomes a NP-hard problem. Large problems of this type can be solved only by
heuristic procedures.
304 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322

The multiple depot scheduling is an extension of the single depot scheduling problem. The
major difference between the two is that in the multiple depot case vehicles are housed at different
depots. The objective is to determine the minimum number of vehicles to serve all trips and to
identify the optimal locations of the vehicles in order to minimize the total cost. Bertossi et al.
(1987) proved this problem is NP-hard.
Two commonly used approaches to solve the problem are based on a SDVS problem formu-
lation and are called ‘‘Cluster First–Schedule Second’’ (Carraresi and Gallo, 1984), and ‘‘Schedule
First–Cluster Second’’ (Gavish and Shifler, 1978).
The MDVS problem can be formulated as a mixed integer programming problem in two dif-
ferent ways: ‘‘Trip Based’’ formulations, in which the trips are the components to which the
variables are related, and ‘‘Block Based’’ formulations, in which the blocks serve that purpose.
Bertossi et al. (1987) formulated the MDVS problem as a multi-commodity ‘‘matching’’
problem, and proposed a heuristic for solving this problem. Problems with 50 trips and 3 depots
are solved using the above procedure. Lamatsch (1990) proposed another multi-commodity
approach that formulates the problem in a time–space network. Mesquita and Paix~ao (1990)
presented a solution procedure for the MDVS problem represented by a multi-commodity for-
mulation. A multi-commodity formulation is a network flow formulation that accounts for
multiple commodities shipped from different origins to different destinations in the network. They
solved problems with 250 trips and 2 depots, and 200 trips and 3 depots.
Forbes et al. (1994) presented a shorter form of the problem formulated as a multi-commodity
network flow problem. They solved problems with up to 600 trips and 3 depots to optimality (with
average number of variables equal to 91,556).
Mesquita and Paix~ ao (1997) reviewed different formulations of the scheduling problem and
studied the application of the branch and bound algorithm to these formulations. The MF x
formulation presented in their paper is the same as the model presented by Forbes et al.
(1994).
The most successful approach for solving the MDVS problem is the work of L€ obel (1997). He
solved large real world problems using a specific type of column generation called ‘‘Lagrangean
Pricing’’. He solved a problem consisting of 25,000 trips with more than 13 million variables to
optimality and a similar problem with about 70 million variables to a good feasible solution.
However, his model does not take into account route time constraints. His basic model, ILP-2, is
also equivalent to the model used by Forbes et al. (1994).
The above formulations are all trip-based. The only block-based formulation found in the
literature is a column generation approach presented by Ribeiro and Soumis (1994). They for-
mulated the problem as a set-partitioning problem with some side constraints.
Due to fuel restrictions, maintenance considerations and some other concerns, route time
constraints must also be considered in the formulation for solving real world problems. Bodin
et al. (1983) referred to a vehicle scheduling problem that considers route time constraints as
VSPLPR with the following description: ‘‘In the vehicle scheduling problem with length of path
restrictions (VSPLPR), constraints are placed on the length of time a vehicle may spend away
from the depot or the mileage a vehicle may cover without returning to the depot for service.’’ In
other words, a feasible block in vehicle scheduling should satisfy the following condition: The
ending time of the last trip of a specific block minus the starting time of the first trip of this block
plus the deadhead travel time from the depot to the starting point of the first trip and the
 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322 305

deadhead travel time from the ending point of the last trip to the depot is less than or equal to the
maximum time that a vehicle can spend away from the depot.
Although schedule makers in transit agencies use manual methods to deal with route time
constraints, there is some recognition of these constraints in the literature in the SDVS context.
Bodin et al. (1983), Branco (1989) and Freling and Paix~ao (1993) have taken these considerations
into account. All approaches consider the blocks as one continuous chain of trips that start with a
pull-out and end with a pull-in. No consideration is given to the fact that buses that come back to
the depot in the middle of the day generally do not get re-fueled and therefore, their afternoon
pull-out must be considered as a continuation of the morning block. These models only consider
the time difference between one pull-out and the corresponding pull-in. This makes the models
unsuitable for considering fuel consumption concerns.
Haghani and Banihashemi (2002) presented a formulation and computational procedure for
solving the multiple depot vehicle scheduling with route time constraints. This model extends the
existing literature by taking into consideration the complicating route time constraints. The fol-
lowing terms are defined:

(1) Depot compatible trips. Two compatible trips are called ‘‘depot compatible’’ if it is feasible and
less costly for the vehicle to return to the depot after serving the first trip and then to serve the
second one from the depot.
(2) Street compatible trips. Two compatible trips are called ‘‘street compatible’’ if it is not feasible
or more costly for the vehicle to return to the depot after serving the first trip in order to serve
the second one from the depot.
(3) Morning trips, midday trips, and afternoon trips. After ordering the trips based on their starting
time, trips are assigned to three different trip sets called ‘‘Morning trip set’’, ‘‘Midday trip set’’
and ‘‘Afternoon trip set’’. The basic criterion for such a grouping is that all ‘‘Morning trips’’
are ‘‘depot compatible’’ with all ‘‘Afternoon trips’’. The remaining trips that are not in these
two groups are known as ‘‘Midday trips’’ which may or may not be compatible with the trips
in the other two groups of trips. The trips in each group also may or may not be compatible
with the other trips in the same group.

Based on these definitions, the formulation is written as follows:

X X X X X
Min ad;i Ad;i þ ed;i Ed;i þ ci;j;d Xi;j;d þ bi;d Bi;d þ fi;d Fi;d ð1Þ
d;i d;i i;j;d d;i d;i
X
s:t: Ad;i 6 rd 8d; ð2Þ
i
X
Ad;i þ Ed;i þ Xj;i;d  wi;d ¼ 0 8i; d; ð3Þ
j
X X
Ed;i  Fi;d ¼ 0 8d; ð4Þ
i i
X
Bi;d þ Fi;d þ Xi;j;d  wi;d ¼ 0 8i; d; ð5Þ
j
306 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322
X
Bi;d 6 rd 8d; ð6Þ
i
X
wi;d ¼ 1 8i; ð7Þ
d

All variables integer; ð8Þ

where

1 if trip i is the first trip for a vehicle from depot d;
Ad;i ¼
0 otherwise;

1 if trip i is the last trip for a vehicle from depot d;
Bi;d ¼
0 otherwise;

1 if trips i is run immediately before trip j by the same vehicle from depot d;
Xi;j;d ¼
0 otherwise;
8
< 1 if trip i is in the \Afternoon trips" set and is run as the first trip in the
Ed;i ¼ afternoon by a vehicle which returns to the depot d in the middle of the day;
:
0 otherwise;
8
>
> 1 if trip i is in the \Morning trips\ set and the vehicle which is running it returns to
<
the depot d in the middle of the day and would return to the street to run
Fi;d ¼
>
> another trip;
:
0 otherwise;
ad;i ¼ deadhead cost between depot d and trip i plus half the fixed cost of a vehicle;
bi;d ¼ deadhead cost from the trip i to the depot d plus travel cost of trip i plus half
the fixed cost of a vehicle;
8
>
> travel cost of trip i plus the deadhead cost between trip i and trip j
<
ðif travel to the depot d is not feasible in the time between two tripsÞ;
ci;j;d ¼
>
> minimum of above and total travel cost from trip i to depot d and from depot d to trip j
:
ðif travel to the depot d is feasible in the time between two tripsÞ;
ed;i ¼ deadhead cost between depot d and trip i;
fi;d ¼ deadhead cost from trip i to the depot d plus travel time of trip i;

1 if trip i is run by a vehicle from depot d;
wi;d ¼
0 otherwise;
rd ¼ maximum available number of vehicles at depot d ðcapacity of depot dÞ:

The formulation presented in (1)–(8) does not include route time constraints. However, these
constraints can be added by solving the problem as formulated in (1)–(8) and identifying the
blocks that violate the restrictions on the route times. For each block that violates the route time
restriction the following constraint can be added to the problem that prevents the formation of
that block
 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322 307

Ad;t1 þ Xt1 ;t2 ;d þ Xt2 ;t3 ;d þ    þ Xtðp1Þ ;tp ;d þ Btp ;d þ 6 p

8d and 8 blocks with block time greater than Tmax ;
where Ad;t1 is the variable associated with trip t1 running as the first trip of a block run by a vehicle
from depot d; Xi;j;d is the variable associated with the compatibility of trips i and j of a block run
consecutively by a vehicle from depot d; Btp ;d is the variable associated with trip tp running as the
last trip of a block run by a vehicle from depot d; p is the number of trips in the block and Tmax is
the MBT.
Haghani and Banihashemi (2002) used the formulation presented in (1)–(8) to solve the MTA
problem. Data obtained from the MTA included: (1) network information (the distance between
each node); (2) trip information (route/line information, starting time and ending time of trips,
and starting points and ending points of trips); (3) depot information (the number of available
vehicles in the depots); (4) MBT; and (5) deadhead speed of the vehicles. Based on these data,
MTA problems were constructed and then solved.
Haghani and Banihashemi (2002) used a three-step process to obtain a solution for the MTA
problem. First, they reduced the size of the MTA problem by reducing the number of trips and
hence the number of variables. The size of the multiple depot formulation that represents the real-
world MTA problem is extremely large. The largest multiple depot problem that Haghani and
Banihashemi (2002) were able to solve exactly was a problem with 800 trips with about 1,350,148
variables. They were not able to obtain an optimal solution for a 900-trip problem that had about
1,350,148 variables. The MTA problem that they solved has 5650. Hence, the reduction of
problem size was an absolute must given the current computing technology.
Second, they set up the MDVS problem based on the revised trip data obtained in the first step.
Third, they used CPLEX software to solve the problem iteratively by adding appropriate con-
straints to eliminate violated blocks. Their final solution for the MTA system included 513,810
min of operations and 570 buses used in the operation.

3. Solving the MTA operational problems using the SDVSRTC model

Single depot problems are easier to solve than multiple depot problems. In general, the sum of
the solution times for the single depot problems is always less than the solution time of the
multiple depot problem assuming that they are of the same size. Given this view, if multiple depot
problems can be decomposed into several single depot problems, the time saved for the solution
will be considerable. This means that the single depot solution procedure can serve as a sound
alternative to the multiple depot solution procedure for solving large scale scheduling problems.
In this section procedures for solving SDVSRTC are adopted to replace those included in the
MDVSRTC model. The basic difference between these two solution procedures is that the trip
allocations among the depots in SDVSRTC are already set. In other words, all trips are assigned
to the depots from the outset.
The SDVSRTC problem has the following input data:

(1) Number of trips, number of depots, number of starting points and ending points, fixed costs,
number of available vehicles in each depot, and average deadhead speed.
308 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322

(2) Starting and ending nodes and times, and trip distances.
(3) The distances between all of the tripsÕ ending points to all of the tripsÕ starting points.
(4) The distances between all depots and all of the trips starting points.
(5) The distances between all of the trips ending points and all depots.
(6) A list of all tripsÕ starting nodes and tripsÕ ending nodes.

Based on these data, the SDVS problem is formulated as follows. This formulation is a special
case of the formulation of the multiple depot problem presented in (1)–(8)
X X X X X
Min ai Ai þ ei Ei þ ci;j Xi;j þ bi Bi þ fi Fi ð9Þ
i i i;j i i
X
s:t: Ai 6 r; ð10Þ
i
X
Ai þ Ei þ Xj;i  wi ¼ 0 8i; ð11Þ
j
X X
Ei  Fi ¼ 0; ð12Þ
i i
X
Bi þ Fi þ Xi;j  wi ¼ 0 8i; ð13Þ
j
X
Bi 6 r; ð14Þ
i

wi ¼ 1 8i; ð15Þ
All variables integer; ð16Þ

where

1 if trip i is the first trip for a vehicle from depot;
Ai ¼
0 otherwise;

1 if trip i is the last trip for a vehicle from depot;
Bi ¼
0 otherwise;

1 if trips i is run immediately before trip j by the same vehicle from depot;
Xi;j ¼
0 otherwise;
8
< 1 if trip i is in the\Afternoon trips" set and is run as the first trip
Ei ¼ in the afternoon by a vehicle which returns to the depot in the middle of the day;
:
0 otherwise;
8
>
> 1 if trip i is in the\Morning trips" set and the vehicle which is running it returns to
<
the depot in the middle of the day and would return to the street to run
Fi ¼
>
> another trip;
:
0 otherwise;
ai ¼ deadhead cost between depot and trip i plus half the fixed cost of a vehicle;
 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322 309

bi ¼ deadhead cost from the trip i to the depot plus travel cost of trip i plus half the
fixed cost of a vehicle;
8
>
> travel cost of trip i plus the deadhead cost between trip i and trip j
<
ðif travel to the depot is not feasible in the time between two tripsÞ;
ci;j ¼
>
> minimum of above and total travel cost from trip i to depot and from depot to trip j
:
ðif travel to the depot is feasible in the time between two tripsÞ;
ei ¼ deadhead cost between depot and trip i;
fi ¼ deadhead cost from trip i to the depot plus travel time of trip i;

1 if trip i is run by a vehicle from depot;
wi ¼
0 otherwise;
r ¼ maximum available number of vehicles at depot ðcapacity of depotÞ:

The SDVS problem presented in (9)–(16) does not include the route time constraints. However,
it can be used to solve the SDVSRTC problem by generating the route time constraints as needed.
The following procedure can be used to solve the SDVSRTC problem.
Step 1. Solve the SDVS problem to optimality using CPLEX. This can be accomplished be-
cause SDVS does not include the route time constraints and is easy to solve. Its solution, however,
may not be feasible considering the route time constraints. The infeasibilities are dealt with in the
following steps.
Step 2. Check the established blocks to identify the blocks that do not satisfy the route time
constraints. If none exists, the solution is the optimal solution for the SDVSRTC problem as well,
stop.
Step 3. For each block that does not satisfy the route time constraints, develop an alternative
block by considering the variables associated with that block, presented as follows:

At1 þ Xt1 ;t2 þ Xt2 ;t3 þ    þ Xtðp1Þ ;tp þ Btp 8 Blocks with block time greater than Tmax :

An alternative block is constructed by eliminating the last trip from the trip list of the original
block one after another until the block time of the alternative block satisfies the specific time
constraints. The variables associated with these blocks are set to 1 and are added to the problem
as fixed constraints.
Step 4. Update and solve the linear programming problem again. If there are any non-integer
variables in the solution, add constraints to the problem that restrict those variables to integers
and resolve the mixed integer programming problem until the integer solution is realized, and then
go back to Step 2.
Two different kinds of trip data are used for developing problems and solving them using the
above heuristic procedure. One is the original trip allocation of the MTA, which is the MTA
systemÕs operational data for January 1998 (referred as SDVSRTC1). The other one is the trip
allocation that is generated by the MDVSRTC model (referred as SDVSRTC2). That means
given the solution of the MDVSRTC, the trips that were served from individual depots in this
solution are assigned to those depots. Based on these two different trip data, the MTA problems
are constructed.
310 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322

Four depots provide the services for all trips in the city of Baltimore. For purposes of pre-
sentation, they are referred to as depots 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. According to January 1998 trip
data provided by the MTA, the number of the trips served by depot 1, 2, 3 and 4 is 1569, 1182,
1253 and 1646, respectively. Based on these, the SDVS problems are developed and then solved
for each depot. In arriving at the solution, the following different parameters are used for con-
structing and solving problems:

(1) vehiclesÕ fixed cost is assumed to be 300 min per vehicle;

(2) maximum allowed block time is assumed to be 20 h;
(3) number of vehicles located in each depot is assumed to be 300;
(4) average deadhead speed is assumed to be 14 miles/h;

The first two values are the same values that were used in the MTA schedule in January 1998.
The value of the third parameter is considered sufficient since the MDVSRTC model adopted by
the MTA required no more than 200 vehicles per depot. With respect to the value of the fourth
parameter, the MTA used 15.5 miles/h in their schedule rather than 14 miles/h that is used in the
SDVSRTC model. The reduced deadhead speed is a conservative estimate. It allows the model to
be on the safe side in that if the vehicles are able to travel the deadhead distances according to the
MTA schedule with speed of 14 miles/h, they will certainly be able to travel that distance with
higher speeds. The solution found for each depot is summarized below:

(1) Depot 1. The total cost of the solution is 144,106 min with 162 buses used and deadhead and
layover times set at 19,630 min.
(2) Depot 2. The total cost of the solution is 115,642 min with 125 buses used and deadhead and
layover times set at 14,317 min.
(3) Depot 3. The total cost of the solution is 127,359 min with 156 buses used and deadhead and
layover times set at 15,945 min.
(4) Depot 4. The total cost of the solution is 128,842 min with 138 buses used and deadhead and
layover times set at 17,290 min.

For the entire MTA system, the total cost of the solution is 515,949 min with 581 buses used,
and with a total of deadhead and layover times of 67,182 min. The required time for solving this
MTA problem is 2559 min.
A comparison of the MTA schedule, the solution of the MDVSRTC model and the solution of
the SDVSRTC1 model is made. The stated values of the parameters used in these models are all
the same except that deadhead speed used in the MTA schedule is 15.5 miles/h while 14 miles/h is
used in both the MDVSRTC and the SDVSRTC1 models. Trip allocations per depot used in the
MTA schedule and SDVSRTC1 model are the same. A summary and comparison of the results
from different models is shown in Table 1.
From this table, it can be observed that the solution of the SDVSRTC1 model is better than the
MTA schedule, but not as good as the MDVSRTC model. When compared to the MTA schedule,
improvements from the SDVSRTC1 model using the same trip set are 4.85% in total cost, 6.29%
in the number of the vehicles, and 14.5% in the deadhead and layover times. On the other hand,
when compared to the solution of the MDVSRTC model, the solution of the SDVSRTC1 is
 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322 311

Table 1
Comparison of the results of the MTA problem from the MTA, MDVSRTC, and SDVSRTC1 models
Model Depot 1 Depot 2 Depot 3 Depot 4 Total
MTA
No. of trips 1569 1182 1253 1646 5650
Total cost 149,919 121,371 135,924 135,029 542,243
No. of vehicles 173 135 164 148 620
D&L 22,119 17,250 18,596 20,612 78,577
MDVSRTC
No. of trips 2218
Total cost 513,810
No. of vehicles 570
D&L 65,144
SDVSRTC1
No. of trips 1569 1182 1253 1646 5650
Total cost 144,106 115,642 127,359 128,842 515,949
No. of vehicles 162 125 156 138 581
D&L 19,630 14,317 15,945 17,290 67,182
% change (MTA over SDVSRTC1)
Total cost 3.88 4.72 6.30 4.58 4.85
No. of vehicles 6.36 7.41 4.88 6.76 6.29
D&L 11.3 17.0 14.3 16.1 14.5
% change (MDVSRTC over SDVSRTC1)
Total cost 0.42
No. of vehicles 1.93
D&L 3.13
SDVSRTC1: based on the original trip allocation of MTA.
D&L: the deadhead and layover costs.

slightly higher. These increases in the SDVSRTC1 model are 0.42%, 1.93%, and 3.13% in total
cost, the number of the vehicles, and deadhead and layover times, respectively.
As noted earlier, trip data used in the MTA schedule and the SDVSRTC1 are the same. It is
clear that the solution obtained from the SDVSRTC1 model represents improvements over the
MTA model. When comparing solutions of the MDVSRTC model with those of the SDVSRTC1
model, the results show that the solution of the MDVSRTC model is better. The reason for this is
that these two models used different trip sets. The SDVSRTC1 used the original trip allocation
while the MDVSRTC generates trip allocations while solving the problem. We used the trip al-
location generated by the MDVSRTC while solving the problem with the single depot approach
(SDVSRTC2). The solution for each depot is summarized as follows:

(1) Depot 1. The total cost of the solution is 140,549 min with 116 buses used; deadhead and lay-
over times are 17,959 min.
(2) Depot 2. The total cost of the solution is 102,606 min with 116 buses used; deadhead and lay-
over times are 11,871 min.
(3) Depot 3. The total cost of the solution is 163,304 min with 184 buses used; deadhead and lay-
over times are 20,331 min.
312 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322

(4) Depot 4. The total cost of the solution is 105,150 min with 109 buses used; deadhead and lay-
over times are 13,382 min.

For the entire MTA system, the total cost of the solution is 511,609 min with 568 buses used.
Deadhead and layover times are 63,543 min. The total required time for utilizing this procedure to
solve the problem is 2857 min. A summary and comparison of the results from the different
models is presented in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, the SDVSRTC2 offers the best solution. When compared to the original
MTA schedule, the improvements are 5.65% in total cost, 8.39% in the number of vehicles, and
19.13% in deadhead and layover times. When compared to the MDVSRTC model, the improve-

Table 2
Comparison of the results of the MTA problem from the MTA, MDVSRTC, SDVSRTC1 and SDVSRTC2 models
Model Depot 1 Depot 2 Depot 3 Depot 4 Total
MTA
No. of trips 1569 1182 1253 1646 5650
Total cost 149,919 121,371 135,924 135,029 542,243
No. of vehicles 173 135 164 148 620
D&L 22,119 17,250 18,596 20,612 78,577
MDVSRTC
No. of trips 2218
Total cost 513,810
No. of vehicles 570
D&L 65,144
SDVSRTC1
No. of trips 1569 1182 1253 1646 5650
Total cost 144,106 115,642 127,359 128,842 515,949
No. of vehicles 162 125 156 138 581
D&L 19,630 14,317 15,945 17,290 67,182
SDVSRTC2
No. of trips 1557 1052 1701 1340 5650
Total cost 140,549 102,606 163,304 105,150 511,609
No. of vehicles 159 116 184 109 568
D&L 17,959 11,871 20,331 13,382 63,543
% change (MTA over SDVSRTC2)
Total cost 5.65
No. of vehicles 8.39
D&L 19.13
% change (MDVSRTC over SDVSRTC2)
Total cost 0.43
No. of vehicles 0.35
D&L 2.46
% change (SDVSRTC1 over SDVSRTC2)
Total cost 0.84
No. of vehicles 2.24
D&L 5.42
SDVSRTC1: based on the original trip allocation of MTA.
SDVSRTC2: based on the trip allocation obtained from the solutions of the MDVSRTC).
D&L: deadhead and layover costs.
 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322 313

ments are 0.43%, 0.35%, and 2.46% in total cost, number of vehicles and deadhead and layover
times, respectively. Solutions from the SDVSRTC2 model are also better than the SDVSRTC1
model in total cost by 0.84%, number of vehicles by 2.24%, and deadhead and layover times by 5.42%.
It might seem counterintuitive that SDVSRTC2 produces a better solution than the
MDVSRTC. It should be noted that to be able to solve MDVSRTC we needed to take some steps
to reduce the number of trips. These steps, while helping to solve the problem as a multiple depot
problem, join some trips together a priori and therefore predetermine the structure of some of the
blocks. As it was pointed out earlier, this reduction in number of trips is absolutely necessary for
solving multiple depot problems. Without it, we cannot solve the multiple depot problems of
realistic size. In the single depot approach such a size reduction is not necessary and therefore the
approach has a flexibility to examine more blocks and come up with slightly better solutions.
Therefore, it seems that a smart trip allocation in advance and solving the problem as SDVSRTC
has an advantage over solving the MDVSRTC in cases where MDVSRTC cannot be solved
directly and a reduction in the number of trips is necessary. When comparing SDVSRTC1 and
SDVSRTC2 results, SDVSRTC2 solution is somewhat better. The only difference between these
two models is the trip allocation for each of the four depots, since the same heuristic procedure is
used in both models for solving the problem.

4. Sensitivity analysis of the parameters in MTA problems

There are four parameters impacting the solution of the MTA problem. This section discusses
the two most important parameters—deadhead speed and the MBT—in solving the MTA
problem. The impact of these two parameters is analyzed in both the MDVSRTC and
SDVSRTC1 models. The purpose of sensitivity analysis is to evaluate the robustness of the model
with respect to changes in the assumed values for the model parameter. If the model is too
sensitive to changes in values of a particular parameter, then that parameter value has to be
predicted with more accuracy.
MDVSRTC was chosen because it is the multiple depot formulation. SDVSRTC1 and
SDVSRTC2 have the same model structure and therefore there is no need to use both in per-
forming sensitivity analysis. We chose SDVSRTC1 because it is based on the MTA trip alloca-
tion. An analysis using SDVSRTC2 will definitely produce the same general trends in the model
sensitivity with respect to changes in the parameters.

4.1. Deadhead speed

In both the MDVSRTC and SDVSRTC1 models, deadhead speed is an important parameter
used to estimate the travel time of all deadhead travel. These travel times will affect the com-
patibilities of the trips and the costs of the variables associated with deadhead travel. In general,
the greater the deadhead speed, the greater the number of compatibilities and the less the
deadhead travel time, resulting in a decrease in the objective function value.
Both SDVSRTC1 and MDVSRTC models are used to identify what effects, if any, the dead-
head speed has on the MTAÕs problem. Four different values of deadhead speeds are utilized in
order to conduct the sensitivity analysis: 18, 16, 12 and 10 miles/h.
314 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322

MTA schedule trip allocations are used as the basic trip data for the SDVSRTC1 model. Table
3 shows the results for each depot for each of the different deadhead speeds. As shown, for each
depot, the numbers of compatibilities increase when the deadhead speeds increase, but the
numbers of variables do not necessarily increase. Since the number of compatibilities increases,
some street compatibilities are changed to depot compatibilities. This increases the number of
trips in the ‘‘Morning trip set’’ and the ‘‘Afternoon trip set’’, thus affecting the number of vari-
ables. More compatibilities created by an increase in deadhead speed may reduce the number of
variables, or at least provide for less of an increase in the number of variables. It follows that
decreased deadhead travel costs resulting from the increase in deadhead speeds will decrease the
costs associated with deadhead travel, thereby decreasing the operational costs of the MTA.
Table 4 displays the results of the final solution for each deadhead speed for the MTA system.
The effect of the increase in deadhead speed on the number of buses used in the SDVSRTC1
model to provide the MTA scheduled services is shown in Fig. 1. The change in total cost versus
the increase in deadhead speed in the SDVSRTC1 model is shown in Fig. 2.
The amount of change, expressed in percentages terms, of comparing different deadhead speeds
to a deadhead speed of 14 miles/h, in solving the MTA problems are as follows. The percentage
changes in total costs range from a decrease of 3.6% to an increase of 2.1%. The percentage

Table 3
Sensitivity analysis of deadhead speeds for each depot in the SDVSRTC1 model
Deadhead No. of No. of No. of Total cost Vehicle cost Opt. cost
speed compatibilities variables vehicles (min) (min) (min)
Depot 1
10 462,505 208,480 165 149,879 49,500 100,379
12 472,233 265,608 164 146,676 49,200 97,476
14 477,481 259,270 162 144,106 48,600 95,506
16 483,635 259,592 161 142,303 48,300 94,003
18 486,458 258,372 160 140,827 48,000 92,827
Depot 2
10 259,097 135,856 126 119,269 37,800 81,469
12 263,429 138,227 125 117,034 37,500 79,534
14 266,117 141,196 125 115,642 37,500 78,142
16 268,344 141,611 125 114,556 37,500 77,056
18 270,071 141,790 125 113,663 37,500 76,163
Depot 3
10 248,073 128,202 158 132,177 47,400 84,777
12 252,606 129,205 158 129,814 47,400 82,414
14 255,863 128,198 156 127,359 46,800 80,559
16 258,380 127,659 154 125,341 46,200 79,141
18 260,339 129,618 154 124,292 46,200 78,092
Depot 4
10 377,472 195,972 141 133,306 42,300 129,076
12 384,462 201,963 139 130,640 41,700 88,940
14 389,532 202,704 138 128,842 41,400 87,442
16 393,484 204,991 136 127,041 40,800 86,241
18 396,610 205,453 136 126,105 40,800 85,305
 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322 315

Table 4
Sensitivity analysis of different deadhead speeds for the MTA system in the SDVSRTC1 model
Deadhead No. of No. of vari- No. of Total cost Vehicle cost Opt. cost
speed compatibilities ables vehicles (min) (min) (min)
10 1,347,147 668,510 590 534,631 177,000 357,631
12 1,372,730 735,003 586 524,164 175,800 348,364
14 1,388,993 731,368 581 515,949 174,300 341,649
16 1,403,843 733,853 576 509,241 172,800 336,441
18 1,413,478 735,233 575 504,887 172,500 332,387

changes in vehicle costs range from a decrease of 1.5% to an increase of 1.0%. The percentage
changes in deadhead and layover costs range from a decrease of 24.9% to an increase of 14.5%.
Deadhead and layover costs are affected the most since these costs are directly related to deadhead
speed. On the other hand, deadhead speed has little impact on the number of vehicles to be as-
signed, whether totally for the MTA, or by depot.
The above analysis was repeated for the MTVSTRC model. Table 5 lists the results of the
sensitivity analysis with respect to the different deadhead speeds for the MTA system. Figs. 3 and
4 show the impact of these deadhead speeds in the MDVSRTC model.

Fig. 1. No. of vehicles versus deadhead speed in the SDVSRTC1 model.

Fig. 2. Total cost versus deadhead speed in the SDVSRTC1 model.

316 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322

Table 5
Sensitivity analysis of deadhead speed for the MTA system in the MDVSRTC model
Deadhead No. of No. of No. of Total cost Vehicle cost Opt. cost
speed compatibilities variables vehicles (min) (min) (min)
10 402,761 222,221 580 530,034 174,000 356,034
12 411,929 198,068 573 519,694 171,900 347,794
14 424,301 191,274 570 513,810 171,000 342,810
16 424,715 194,602 568 508,911 170,400 338,511
18 425,687 186,808 568 505,608 170,400 335,208

Fig. 3. No. of vehicles versus deadhead speed in MDVSRTC model.

Fig. 4. Total cost versus deadhead speed in the MDVSRTC model.

As results show, the number of compatibilities increases when deadhead speeds increase.
Conversely, as the deadhead speeds increase, the number of the variables increases only slightly or
even decreases. As noted earlier with regard to the SDVSRTC1 model, this is because the in-
creases in compatibilities resulting from the increases in deadhead speeds leads some street
compatibilities to become depot compatibilities. This increases the number of trips in ‘‘Morning
trip set’’ and ‘‘Afternoon trip set’’ and, therefore, affects the number of variables as well. Simi-
larly, the number of vehicles and operational costs decline in the MDVSRTC model due to in-
creases in deadhead speed.
 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322 317

By comparing solutions resulting from using the original deadhead speed of 14 miles/h, the
impact of different deadhead speeds on selected values can be ascertained. Deadhead and layover
costs are impacted the most in both the MDVSRTC and SDVDTRC1 models. The number of
vehicles impacted, expressed in percentages, ranges from 1.8% to 0.4%. While the changes in
total costs range from 3.2% to 1.6%. Changes in these components have a significant impact on
the total cost.
Since the cost impact of different deadhead speeds is considerable, they should be considered as
important parameters for management to control.

4.2. Maximum allowed block time

The MBT is the maximum time that vehicles can spend away from the depot. Basically, this
involves the problem of fuel consumption, since the vehicles have to go back to the depot to refill
their fuel tanks. In both SDVSRTC1 and MDVSRTC models, the value of this parameter is the
criterion used to figure out the number of violated blocks in the solution procedure. Therefore,
this affects the number of iterations needed for obtaining solutions. Normally, it is possible to
identify more violated blocks when MBT is smaller. Thus, an increased number of iterations is
needed to reach a solution. The MBT may affect operational and vehicle costs as well, because
more MBTÕs require that the same vehicles serve more trips in the blocks. On the other hand, the
number of vehicles required for meeting all trip needs may be reduced.
The base value of MBT is 20 h in the MDVSRTC model. In order to determine the impact of
this parameter in real world problem, this time has been changed to 12, 14, 16, 18 and 22 h. We
analyze the impact on both SDVSRTC1 and MDVSRTC models.
Table 6 shows the results, by depot, using different MBTs for the SDVSRTC1 model. It can be
observed that the number of iterations needed for resolving problems at each depot decreases
when the MBT is increased. This is because fewer violated blocks are found in SDVS solutions.
Also, total costs decrease as the MBT increases. In some cases, this decrease is only in operational
cost while in others it applies to both vehicle and operational costs. As shown, when the MBT is
equal to or greater than 1080 min, the number of vehicles needed for serving all trips is the same.
Thus, this value may be the critical value in developing the blocks in the SDVSRTC1 model for
solving the MTA problem. When the MBT is greater than this value, only operational costs
decrease. Moreover, looking at the case of depot 3, all blocks are exactly the same in MBT of
1200 and 1320 min since all components of costs are similar. By totaling the solutions for each
depot, the impact of the MBT in the SDVSRTC1 model for resolving MTA problems can be
determined. Figs. 5 and 6 compare total costs and number of vehicles versus MBT for the
SDVSRTC1 model.
A comparison of the solutions resulting from the use of the additional values for the MBT to
the original MBT of 1200 min indicates that the percentage changes range from 3.8% to 0.1% in
total cost; from 7.7% to 0% in the number of vehicles; and from 9.2% to 0.6% in deadhead and
layover costs. While the percentage changes are small between a MBT of 1080 and 1320 min, they
are substantially larger when the MBT is less than 1080 min. Therefore, for MTA purposes, this
value may be the normal length of the block included in the SDVSRTC1 model. If the MBT value
is larger, improvements may be limited to only a decrease in operational costs. On the other hand,
if the MBT is less than this value, the vehicle and operational costs will increase significantly.
318 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322

Table 6
Sensitivity analysis of MBT for each depot in the SDVSRTC1 model
MBT (min) No. of iterations No. of vehicles Total cost (min) Vehicle cost (min) Opt. cost (min)
Depot 1
720 5 173 149,186 51,900 97,286
840 1 173 149,199 51,900 97,299
960 1 173 144,272 51,900 92,372
1080 2 162 144,389 48,600 95,789
1200 1 162 144,106 48,600 95,506
1320 1 162 143,999 48,600 95,399
Depot 2
720 5 140 121,505 42,000 79,505
840 4 130 117,515 39,000 78,515
960 3 125 115,971 37,500 78,471
1080 2 125 115,630 37,500 78,130
1200 1 125 115,642 37,500 78,142
1320 1 125 115,463 37,500 77,963
Depot 3
720 5 163 130,501 48,900 81,601
840 3 156 127,879 46,800 81,079
960 3 156 127,511 46,800 80,711
1080 1 156 127,429 46,800 80,629
1200 0 156 127,359 46,800 80,559
1320 0 156 127,359 46,800 80,559
Depot 4
720 5 150 134,139 45,000 89,139
840 4 140 130,159 42,000 88,159
960 2 139 129,554 41,700 87,854
1080 1 138 129,046 41,400 87,646
1200 0 138 128,842 41,400 87,442
1320 0 138 128,763 41,400 87,363

Fig. 5. No. of vehicles versus MBT in the SDVSRTC1 model.

 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322 319

Fig. 6. Total cost versus MBT in the SDVSRTC1 model.

Table 7 includes the results of using different MBT values for the final solution in the
MDVSRTC. As shown, the number of iterations for obtaining solutions will usually decrease as

Table 7
Sensitivity analysis of MBT for each depot in the MDVSRTC model
MBT (min) No. of iterations No. of vehicles Total cost (min) Vehicle cost (min) Opt. cost (min)
Depot 1
720 7 172 146,955 51,600 95,355
840 2 160 142,719 48,000 94,719
960 2 160 142,046 48,000 94,046
1080 2 160 141,671 48,000 93,671
1200 4 160 141,396 48,000 93,396
1320 0 160 141,257 48,000 93,257
Depot 2
720 12 135 110,480 40,500 69,980
840 7 118 104,252 35,400 68,852
960 4 116 103,109 34,800 68,309
1080 2 116 103,052 34,800 68,252
1200 3 116 102,774 34,800 67,974
1320 1 116 102,715 34,800 67,915
Depot 3
720 7 201 170,165 60,300 109,865
840 4 189 166,002 56,700 109,302
960 2 185 164,449 55,500 108,949
1080 3 185 164,274 55,500 108,774
1200 2 185 163,924 55,500 108,424
1320 1 185 163,878 55,500 108,378
Depot 4
720 4 131 113,591 39,300 74,291
840 4 121 110,014 36,300 73,714
960 4 116 108,405 34,800 73,605
1080 2 113 107,152 33,900 73,252
1200 2 109 105,666 32,700 72,966
1320 1 109 105,354 32,700 72,654
320 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322

Fig. 7. No. of vehicles versus MBT in the MDVSRTC model.

Fig. 8. Total cost versus MBT in the MDVSRTC model.

the MBT increases since fewer violated blocks are found with higher MBT. Total costs also de-
crease as the MBT increases. Such decreases result from a decrease in operational costs only, while
other decreases are attributable to both vehicle and operational costs. Improvements in total costs
take place only in operational costs when the MBT is greater than 1200 min. Figs. 7 and 8 show
the number of vehicles required and the total cost versus the MBT for the MDVSRTC model.
Changes in total cost range from 5.3% to 0.1%, for vehicles from 12.1% to 0%, and for
deadhead and layover costs from 10.3% to 0.9%. When the MBT range is between 720 and 960
min, the change in percentages is fairly substantial, with all cost components increasing signifi-
cantly. However, when the MBT range is 1080–1320 min, these percentages change only slightly.
When the MBT is more than 1200 min, the number of vehicles for each depot is the same. Increases
in the MBT only improve total costs by decreasing operational costs. This is the result of better
connecting trips, by using the same number of vehicles. Therefore, 1200 min may represent the
critical value for use in constructing the blocks in the MDVSRTC model for solving the MTA
problem.

5. Conclusion and future research directions

Three models for bus transit vehicle scheduling were compared using data from the January
1998 MTA operation of the city of the Baltimore in this research. The model results were also
compared with the schedules that were in use by the MTA at that time. The first one was the
 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322 321

MDVSRTC model proposed by Haghani and Banihashemi (2002). The second and the third were
SDVSRTC1 and SDVSRTC2 models that are single depot models. These last two models have
the same structure but use different depot trip allocation data.
The SDVSRTC2 model provided the best solution for solving the MTA problem. Compared to
the original MTA schedule, the improvements are 5.65% in total cost, 8.39% in the number of
vehicles, and 19.13% in deadhead and layover times. These improvements are significant because
the cost of MTA operation is very large. It should be noted, however, that while the SDVSRTC2
model provided the best solution in this case, it is not the absolute preferred method of solution in
all cases. In the case of the MTA problem, due to the large size of the problem, the MDVSRTC
problem cannot be solved directly. Because of the steps that need to be taken to reduce the size of
the MDVSRTC problem to make it more tractable, its solution is slightly inferior compared to the
SDVSRTC2.
In general, when solving real-world bus transit scheduling problems, one should consider the
problem size, the structure of the trips, the assignment of trips to depots, and perhaps some
additional factors including local operational constraints in choosing the appropriate method of
solution. The MDVSRTC should always be the first choice if possible. If the size of the problem
and the computational burden make the MDVSRTC problem solution impractical, then other
proposed methods are good candidates for solving these complicated real-world problems. In this
paper as well as in Haghani and Banihashemi (2002), we have demonstrated the application of
these methods.
In addition, the parameters analysis results show that an increase in deadhead speed will result
in a decrease of total cost. With respect to MBT, the analysis results show that if the value of this
parameter is more than the critical value (1080 min for SDVSRTC1 model, and 1200 min for
MDVSRTC model), the change in total cost of the MTA operation is very small. As noted earlier,
the value of this parameter in the current MTA operation is 1200 min. Therefore, this is an ap-
propriate value for the MTA operation.
In each of the models included in this study, a specific restriction is placed on the time a vehicle
can spend away from the depot. However, in practice, a single time factor that can take into
account the problem of fuel consumption may not be practical in limiting the time of the blocks
since the average vehicle speed to operate the trips is not the same. This results in different total
available operational times for vehicles with the same amount of fuel. In this situation, it may be
more appropriate to use the distance a vehicle may travel, or a combination of time and travel
distance. Therefore, perhaps if such a strategy can be designed and implemented, better solutions
to the scheduling problems can be obtained.
The cost of crews accounts for a significant part of a transit agencyÕs total cost. If a strategy that
simultaneously schedules vehicles and crews can be adopted, the total cost can be managed better.
As a result, more efficient schedules can be designed for use.
Further enhancements to the formulations used in this research and developing more efficient
heuristic approaches for solving the problem is another important area for future research.

References

Banihashemi, M., 1998. Multiple depot transit scheduling problem considering time restriction constraints. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
322 A. Haghani et al. / Transportation Research Part B 37 (2003) 301–322

Bertossi, A.A., Carraresi, P., Gallo, G., 1987. On some matching problems arising in vehicle scheduling models.
Networks 17, 271–281.
Bodin, L., Golden, B., 1981. Classification in vehicle routing and scheduling. Networks 11, 97–108.
Bodin, L., Golden, B., Assad, A., Ball, M., 1983. Routing and scheduling of vehicles and crews the state of the art.
Computer and Operations Research 10, 63–211.
Branco, I.M., 1989. Algorithms para modelos matemtio de quasi-afectacao e extenses. Ph.D. thesis, DEIOC, FCUL,
Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.
Carraresi, P., Gallo, G., 1984. Network models for vehicle and crew scheduling. European Journal of Operations
Research 16, 139–151.
Forbes, M.A., Hotts, J.N., Watts, A.M., 1994. An exact algorithm for multiple depot vehicle scheduling. European
Journal of Operational Research 72, 115–124.
Freling, R., Paix~ao, J., 1993. Vehicle scheduling with time constraints. In: Proceedings of the 6th International
Workshop on Computer-aided Scheduling of Public Transit, Lisbon, Portugal.
Gavish, B., Shifler, E., 1978. An approach for solving a class of transportation scheduling problems. European Journal
of Operations Research 3, 12–134.
Haghani, A., Banihashemi, M., 2002. Heuristic approaches for solving large-scale bus transit vehicle scheduling
problem with route time constraints. Transportation Research A 36, 309–333.
Lamatsch, A., 1990. An approach to vehicle scheduling with depot capacity constraints. In: Proceedings of the 5th
International Workshop on Computer-aided Scheduling of Public Transit, Montreal, Canada.
L€
obel, A., 1997. Solving large-scale multiple-depot scheduling problems. In: Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Computer-aided Scheduling of Public Transit, Cambridge, MA.
Mesquita, M., Paix~ao, J., 1990. Multiple depot vehicle scheduling problem: a new heuristic based on quasi-assignment
algorithm. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Computer-aided Scheduling of Public Transit,
Montreal, Canada.
Mesquita, M., Paix~ao, J., 1997. Exact algorithms for the multiple-depot vehicle scheduling problem based on multi-
commodity network flow type formulations. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer-aided
Scheduling of Public Transit, Cambridge, MA.
Ribeiro, C.C., Soumis, F., 1994. A column generation approach to the multiple-depot vehicle scheduling problem.
Operations Research 42, 41–52.