pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18687 · v1 · pith:IIDOZOI6new · submitted 2026-05-18 · 🧮 math.OC

Implementation-Based Incentive Design for Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand and Transit Systems

Xinling Li , Runyu Zhang , Gioele Zardini This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 08:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧮 math.OC
keywords AMoDpublic transitincentive designk-implementationmixed-integer convex programmingnetwork optimizationsocial targetcongestion effects
0
0 comments X

The pith

The minimum transfer stabilizing a chosen AMoD and public transit operating profile equals the sum of each operator's unilateral deviation gain.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper replaces the search for municipal policies that induce good equilibria with a direct calculation of the smallest payment that makes a given target profile stable against unilateral deviation by either the AMoD or public transit operator. The payment is obtained by adding the extra profit each operator would earn if it could best-respond while the other stays at the target. Computing these quantities requires three oracles: one for the social target solved by an entropy-regularized mixed-integer convex program, one for the AMoD best response solved by convex relaxation plus sequential approximation, and one for the PT best response solved by a mixed-integer convex relaxation. A New York City case study shows that the resulting bounds are tight and that the main source of misalignment shifts with congestion level.

Core claim

Given a target operating profile, the minimum realized transfer that makes unilateral deviation unattractive decomposes into the sum of the AMoD operator's unilateral deviation gain and the PT operator's unilateral deviation gain. These gains are obtained by solving three oracles: the social target via an entropy-regularized mixed-integer convex formulation, the AMoD best response via an exact reformulation, convex relaxation for upper bounds, and sequential convex approximation for feasible lower bounds, and the PT best response via a mixed-integer convex relaxation whose exactness condition is characterized. The framework therefore produces computable bounds on the implementation payment,

What carries the argument

The k-implementation transfer payment, which decomposes into unilateral deviation gains computed from three network optimization oracles that incorporate endogenous mode choice and congestion.

If this is right

  • The method produces both upper and lower bounds on the transfer that bracket the minimum incentive required.
  • The dominant source of misalignment between the two operators shifts as network congestion increases.
  • The approach sidesteps bilevel policy optimization and equilibrium-selection problems by directly implementing a pre-chosen target.
  • Payments derived from best-response oracles can render any feasible target profile stable without requiring full equilibrium computation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same decomposition into unilateral gains could be applied to incentive design in other multi-operator infrastructure settings such as shared mobility and logistics.
  • Faster surrogate models for the oracles would enable real-time recalculation of the transfer under changing demand.
  • Municipal authorities could use the computed bounds to set performance-based contract terms with private operators.
  • Extending the oracles to stochastic demand would test whether the payment remains effective under demand uncertainty.

Load-bearing premise

The three oracles can be solved to sufficient accuracy using the derived entropy-regularized mixed-integer convex programs, convex relaxations, and sequential approximations even when passenger mode choices and congestion are endogenous.

What would settle it

Apply the computed transfer to the New York City network instance and simulate whether either operator obtains a higher payoff by unilaterally switching to its best-response strategy while the other stays fixed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18687 by Gioele Zardini, Runyu Zhang, Xinling Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Structure of interaction among MCP, operators, and passengers. to the resulting service attributes, and the MCP seeks to improve overall system performance through regulation. Before formally discussing the problem arising from this interaction, we first define the behavior and decisions of each entity involved. AMoD: During operation, the AMoD operator chooses an OD-specific price πod for each (o, d) ∈ D˜… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The k-implementation-based framework. The target oracle computes a socially preferred operator profile z = (z a , zpt). The corresponding municipal action is then derived constructively as an implementing transfer rule a m(z) ∈ A m from the deviation values of the two operator oracles. Thus, the municipality is not removed from the model; rather, its action is obtained directly from the implementation logi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Tradeoff induced by entropy regularization: optimality loss relative to the unregularized decomposed target problem and recovered AMoD unit-distance price under different background traffic levels. The experiments are based on the NYC Manhattan network with demand derived from TLC trip data [44], the road network built from OpenStreetMap (OSM) [45], and the transit network from MTA GTFS data [46]. To analy… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Certified optimality gap of the AMoD best-response oracle across SCA iterations under different background traffic levels. Each trajectory corresponds to one AMoD operating-cost scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Excess social cost due to deviation and uncoordinated operator behavior. respectively. Thus, in the parameter region most relevant for the main Manhattan case study, the PT deviation term is either exact or very tightly bounded. The large gaps that appear in the low-capacity rows should not be read as numerical instability. Rather, they signal a different operating regime: a capacity-truncated or demand-sh… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Implementation-payment profile for each operator and social cost of the target profile as background traffic varies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Achieving a socially desirable operating point for a multimodal transportation system is challenging when Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand (AMoD) and Public Transit (PT) operators pursue selfish objectives alongside endogenous passenger choices. Existing equilibrium-based regulation models typically search over municipal policies to predict the induced operator equilibrium, creating strong behavioral assumptions, equilibrium-selection issues, and difficult bilevel optimization problems. This paper proposes an implementation-based alternative. Rather than asking which municipal action induces the best equilibrium, we ask: given a target operating profile, what minimum realized transfer makes unilateral deviation unattractive for each operator? Using k-implementation theory, this payment decomposes into two unilateral deviation gains: one for the AMoD operator and one for PT. Calculating this payment requires computing three distinct objects: the social target, the AMoD best response, and the PT best response. This is nontrivial because each represents a large-scale network optimization problem complicated by endogenous mode choice and congestion. To address this, we develop tailored mathematical formulations and algorithms for each oracle. For the social target, we derive a decomposition and entropy-regularized mixed-integer convex formulation balancing social optimality and implementability. For the AMoD oracle, we derive an exact reformulation, a convex relaxation providing a global upper bound, and a sequential convex approximation for feasible lower bounds. For the PT oracle, we develop a mixed-integer convex relaxation and characterize its exactness condition. A NYC case study shows the framework computes tight implementation-payment bounds and reveals how the dominant source of incentive misalignment shifts with congestion.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. This paper introduces an implementation-based incentive design framework for multimodal transportation systems involving Autonomous Mobility-on-Demand (AMoD) and Public Transit (PT) operators. Given a target operating profile, it determines the minimum transfer payment that discourages unilateral deviations by decomposing the payment into the sum of deviation gains for each operator. These gains are computed using three oracles solved via specialized optimization techniques: an entropy-regularized mixed-integer convex program for the social target, an exact reformulation with convex relaxation and sequential convex approximation for the AMoD best response, and a mixed-integer convex relaxation for the PT best response. The framework is demonstrated through a case study in New York City, showing how it computes tight bounds and identifies shifts in incentive misalignment with varying congestion.

Significance. Should the oracles prove solvable to adequate precision and the bounds remain valid under realistic conditions, this work provides a valuable new paradigm for regulating multimodal systems without relying on equilibrium predictions or strong behavioral assumptions. The use of k-implementation theory to decompose incentives and the tailored algorithms for handling endogenous mode choice and congestion in large networks are notable advances. The NYC case study adds practical relevance by illustrating the method's applicability to real-world urban settings.

major comments (2)
  1. [AMoD oracle formulation and algorithm] AMoD Best Response Oracle: The sequential convex approximation is used to obtain a feasible lower bound on the AMoD operator's deviation gain. However, with endogenous passenger mode choice and link congestion, the underlying problem is non-convex. Local optima from the approximation may yield a strictly smaller deviation gain than the true best response, which would make the computed lower bound on the minimum transfer too small and undermine the claimed implementation guarantee. A numerical verification of tightness or global optimality on representative instances is necessary to support the central result.
  2. [PT oracle and exactness condition] PT Best Response Oracle: The mixed-integer convex relaxation is proposed along with a characterization of its exactness condition. It is unclear from the presented results whether this condition holds or is approximately satisfied on the realistic NYC network instances in the case study, which directly affects the reliability of the computed deviation gains and transfer bounds.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Case study section] The abstract states that the NYC case study shows tight bounds, but the main text would benefit from more explicit reporting of quantitative metrics, error analysis, and comparison to true best responses where possible.
  2. [Preliminaries and notation] Notation for the three oracles and the decomposition of the transfer payment could be introduced with a summary table or diagram to improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with k-implementation theory.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback on our manuscript. The comments raise important points about the oracle formulations and their implications for the implementation guarantees. We address each major comment below with clarifications on our approach and indicate the revisions made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [AMoD oracle formulation and algorithm] AMoD Best Response Oracle: The sequential convex approximation is used to obtain a feasible lower bound on the AMoD operator's deviation gain. However, with endogenous passenger mode choice and link congestion, the underlying problem is non-convex. Local optima from the approximation may yield a strictly smaller deviation gain than the true best response, which would make the computed lower bound on the minimum transfer too small and undermine the claimed implementation guarantee. A numerical verification of tightness or global optimality on representative instances is necessary to support the central result.

    Authors: We appreciate this observation regarding the non-convexity of the AMoD best-response problem. Our framework employs a convex relaxation that yields a global upper bound on the deviation gain; the minimum transfer is computed from this upper bound to ensure it is at least as large as the true best-response value, thereby preserving the implementation guarantee that unilateral deviation is unattractive. The sequential convex approximation is used separately to generate feasible solutions and obtain a lower bound, which we employ to assess the tightness of the upper bound in the NYC case study. To address the request for verification, we have added numerical experiments in the revised manuscript that quantify the optimality gap of the SCA on representative instances, confirming that the bounds remain sufficiently tight for the reported results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [PT oracle and exactness condition] PT Best Response Oracle: The mixed-integer convex relaxation is proposed along with a characterization of its exactness condition. It is unclear from the presented results whether this condition holds or is approximately satisfied on the realistic NYC network instances in the case study, which directly affects the reliability of the computed deviation gains and transfer bounds.

    Authors: Thank you for highlighting this aspect of the PT oracle. The paper characterizes the exactness condition for the mixed-integer convex relaxation. In the revised manuscript, we have included an explicit evaluation of this condition across the NYC network instances from the case study. The results show that the relaxation is exact or approximately exact (with negligible gaps) for all instances considered, supporting the reliability of the computed deviation gains and transfer bounds. We have added a new table and discussion in the case-study section to present these findings. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: oracles posed as independent optimization problems

full rationale

The paper's central claim decomposes the minimum transfer payment via k-implementation theory into the sum of two unilateral deviation gains, each obtained by solving one of three explicitly defined oracles (social target, AMoD best response, PT best response). These oracles are formulated as separate large-scale network optimization problems using entropy-regularized MICP for the social target, exact reformulation plus convex relaxation and sequential convex approximation for AMoD, and mixed-integer convex relaxation for PT. No equation or step equates the computed payment or bound to a fitted input, self-referential definition, or prior self-citation that is itself unverified; the derivations remain externally falsifiable through the stated network models and NYC case study. The approximation concerns raised by the skeptic affect bound tightness but do not create definitional circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the ability to formulate and solve the three network oracles accurately; details on any free parameters or additional axioms are not visible from the abstract alone.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Social target can be expressed as an entropy-regularized mixed-integer convex program balancing optimality and implementability
    Stated as the formulation chosen for the social oracle.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5809 in / 1261 out tokens · 39149 ms · 2026-05-20T08:53:00.757007+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    2011 urban mobility report,

    D. Schrank, T. Lomax, B. Eisele,et al., “2011 urban mobility report,” tech. rep., Texas Transportation Institute, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [2]

    Impacts of automated mobility-on-demand on traffic dynamics, energy and emissions: A case study of singapore,

    S. Oh, A. F. Lentzakis, R. Seshadri, and M. Ben-Akiva, “Impacts of automated mobility-on-demand on traffic dynamics, energy and emissions: A case study of singapore,”Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, vol. 110, p. 102327, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Evaluating the impacts of shared automated mobility on-demand services: an activity-based accessibility approach,

    B.-h. Nahmias-Biran, J. B. Oke, N. Kumar, C. Lima Azevedo, and M. Ben-Akiva, “Evaluating the impacts of shared automated mobility on-demand services: an activity-based accessibility approach,”Transportation, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 1613–1638, 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    J. A. Gomez-Ibanez and J. R. Meyer,Going private: The international experience with transport privatization. Bloomsbury Publishing USA, 2011

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Game theory to study interactions between mo- bility stakeholders,

    G. Zardini, N. Lanzetti, L. Guerrini, E. Frazzoli, and F. Dörfler, “Game theory to study interactions between mo- bility stakeholders,” in2021 IEEE International Intelligent Transportation Systems Conference (ITSC), pp. 2054– 2061, IEEE, 2021

    work page 2054

  6. [6]

    Regulating mobility-on- demand services: Tri-level model and bayesian optimization solution approach,

    F. Dandl, R. Engelhardt, M. Hyland, G. Tilg, K. Bogenberger, and H. S. Mahmassani, “Regulating mobility-on- demand services: Tri-level model and bayesian optimization solution approach,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 125, p. 103075, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Hierarchical Strategic Decision-Making in Layered Mobility Systems

    M. He, Z. He, J. Ghadamian, F. Dörfler, E. Frazzoli, and G. Zardini, “Hierarchical strategic decision-making in layered mobility systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.08734, 2025. 22

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    k-implementation,

    D. Monderer and M. Tennenholtz, “k-implementation,” inProceedings of the 4th ACM conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 19–28, 2003

    work page 2003

  9. [9]

    Mean-field control of adherence in participation-coupled vehicle rebalancing systems,

    A. S. Brar, R. Su, J. Kaur, and G. Zardini, “Mean-field control of adherence in participation-coupled vehicle rebalancing systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.00950, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Reproducibility in the control of autonomous mobility-on-demand systems,

    X. Li, M. Alharbi, D. Gammelli, J. Harrison, F. Rodrigues, M. Schiffer, M. Pavone, E. Frazzoli, J. Zhao, and G. Zardini, “Reproducibility in the control of autonomous mobility-on-demand systems,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2026

    work page 2026

  11. [11]

    Intermodal autonomous mobility-on-demand,

    M. Salazar, N. Lanzetti, F. Rossi, M. Schiffer, and M. Pavone, “Intermodal autonomous mobility-on-demand,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 3946–3960, 2019

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Multimodal mobility systems: joint optimization of transit network design and pricing,

    Q. Luo, S. Samaranayake, and S. Banerjee, “Multimodal mobility systems: joint optimization of transit network design and pricing,” inProceedings of the ACM/IEEE 12th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems, pp. 121–131, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Ridesharing and fleet sizing for on-demand multimodal transit systems,

    R. Auad-Perez and P. Van Hentenryck, “Ridesharing and fleet sizing for on-demand multimodal transit systems,” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 138, p. 103594, 2022

    work page 2022

  14. [14]

    Integrating ride-hailing services with public transport: a stochastic user equilibrium model for multimodal transport systems,

    B. Liu, Y . Ji, and O. Cats, “Integrating ride-hailing services with public transport: a stochastic user equilibrium model for multimodal transport systems,”Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 2236240, 2025

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Integrating transit systems with ride-sourcing services: A study on the system users’ stochastic equilibrium problem,

    Y . Zhang and A. Khani, “Integrating transit systems with ride-sourcing services: A study on the system users’ stochastic equilibrium problem,”Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, vol. 150, pp. 95–123, 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    An economic analysis of a multi-modal transportation system with ride-sourcing services and multi-class users,

    M. Ma, Y . Chen, W. Liu, and S. T. Waller, “An economic analysis of a multi-modal transportation system with ride-sourcing services and multi-class users,”Transport Policy, vol. 140, pp. 1–17, 2023

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    A framework to integrate mode choice in the design of mobility-on-demand systems,

    Y . Liu, P. Bansal, R. Daziano, and S. Samaranayake, “A framework to integrate mode choice in the design of mobility-on-demand systems,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 105, pp. 648–665, 2019

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Joint design of multimodal transit networks and shared autonomous mobility fleets,

    H. K. Pinto, M. F. Hyland, H. S. Mahmassani, and I. Ö. Verbas, “Joint design of multimodal transit networks and shared autonomous mobility fleets,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 113, pp. 2–20, 2020

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Joint frequency-setting and pricing optimization on multimodal transit networks at scale,

    D. Bertsimas, Y . Sian Ng, and J. Yan, “Joint frequency-setting and pricing optimization on multimodal transit networks at scale,”Transportation Science, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 839–853, 2020

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    Plan your system and price for free: Fast algorithms for multimodal transit operations,

    S. Banerjee, C. Hssaine, Q. Luo, and S. Samaranayake, “Plan your system and price for free: Fast algorithms for multimodal transit operations,”Transportation science, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 13–27, 2025

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    Design of transit-centric multimodal urban mobility system with autonomous mobility-on- demand,

    X. Guo and J. Zhao, “Design of transit-centric multimodal urban mobility system with autonomous mobility-on- demand,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.05885, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Competition between shared autonomous vehicles and public transit: A case study in singapore,

    B. Mo, Z. Cao, H. Zhang, Y . Shen, and J. Zhao, “Competition between shared autonomous vehicles and public transit: A case study in singapore,”Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, vol. 127, p. 103058, 2021

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    On the interplay between self-driving cars and public transportation,

    N. Lanzetti, M. Schiffer, M. Ostrovsky, and M. Pavone, “On the interplay between self-driving cars and public transportation,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1478–1490, 2023

    work page 2023

  24. [24]

    Strategic interactions in multi-modal mobility systems: A game-theoretic perspective,

    G. Zardini, N. Lanzetti, G. Belgioioso, C. Hartnik, S. Bolognani, F. Dörfler, and E. Frazzoli, “Strategic interactions in multi-modal mobility systems: A game-theoretic perspective,” in2023 IEEE 26th International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 5452–5459, IEEE, 2023

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Ride-hailing, travel behaviour and sustainable mobility: an international review,

    A. Tirachini, “Ride-hailing, travel behaviour and sustainable mobility: an international review,”Transportation, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 2011–2047, 2020

    work page 2011

  26. [26]

    Is uber a substitute or complement for public transit?,

    J. D. Hall, C. Palsson, and J. Price, “Is uber a substitute or complement for public transit?,”Journal of urban economics, vol. 108, pp. 36–50, 2018

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Topological conditions for uniqueness of equilibrium in networks,

    I. Milchtaich, “Topological conditions for uniqueness of equilibrium in networks,”Mathematics of Operations Research, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 225–244, 2005

    work page 2005

  28. [28]

    Analysis and control of autonomous mobility-on-demand systems,

    G. Zardini, N. Lanzetti, M. Pavone, and E. Frazzoli, “Analysis and control of autonomous mobility-on-demand systems,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 633–658, 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Public transport pricing policy: Empirical evidence from a fare-free scheme in tallinn, estonia,

    O. Cats, T. Reimal, and Y . Susilo, “Public transport pricing policy: Empirical evidence from a fare-free scheme in tallinn, estonia,”Transportation Research Record, vol. 2415, no. 1, pp. 89–96, 2014. 23

    work page 2014

  30. [30]

    Analyzing equity impacts of transit fare changes: Case study of alameda–contra costa transit, california,

    C. Nuworsoo, A. Golub, and E. Deakin, “Analyzing equity impacts of transit fare changes: Case study of alameda–contra costa transit, california,”Evaluation and program planning, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 360–368, 2009

    work page 2009

  31. [31]

    Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior,

    D. McFadden, “Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior,” 1972

    work page 1972

  32. [32]

    K. A. Small, E. T. Verhoef, and R. Lindsey,The economics of urban transportation. Routledge, 2024

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Daganzo,Fundamentals of transportation and traffic operations, vol

    C. Daganzo,Fundamentals of transportation and traffic operations, vol. 30. Pergamon Oxford, 1997

    work page 1997

  34. [34]

    Automobile externalities and policies,

    I. W. H. Parry, M. Walls, and W. Harrington, “Automobile externalities and policies,”Journal of economic literature, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 373–399, 2007

    work page 2007

  35. [35]

    A behavioral model of rational choice,

    H. A. Simon, “A behavioral model of rational choice,”The quarterly journal of economics, pp. 99–118, 1955

    work page 1955

  36. [36]

    On boundedly rational user equilibrium in transportation systems,

    H. S. Mahmassani and G.-L. Chang, “On boundedly rational user equilibrium in transportation systems,”Trans- portation science, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 89–99, 1987

    work page 1987

  37. [37]

    The complexity of computing a nash equilibrium,

    C. Daskalakis, P. W. Goldberg, and C. H. Papadimitriou, “The complexity of computing a nash equilibrium,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 89–97, 2009

    work page 2009

  38. [38]

    Selection criteria in coordination games: Some experimental results,

    R. W. Cooper, D. V . DeJong, R. Forsythe, and T. W. Ross, “Selection criteria in coordination games: Some experimental results,”The American Economic Review, vol. 80, no. 1, pp. 218–233, 1990

    work page 1990

  39. [39]

    A review of urban transportation network design problems,

    R. Z. Farahani, E. Miandoabchi, W. Y . Szeto, and H. Rashidi, “A review of urban transportation network design problems,”European journal of operational research, vol. 229, no. 2, pp. 281–302, 2013

    work page 2013

  40. [40]

    Strategic pricing and routing to maximize profit in congested roads considering interactions with travelers,

    Y . Kim, N. Duan, G. Zardini, S. Samaranayake, and D. Wischik, “Strategic pricing and routing to maximize profit in congested roads considering interactions with travelers,”IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1638–1650, 2025

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    A unified convergence analysis of block successive minimization methods for nonsmooth optimization,

    M. Razaviyayn, M. Hong, and Z.-Q. Luo, “A unified convergence analysis of block successive minimization methods for nonsmooth optimization,”SIAM Journal on Optimization, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 1126–1153, 2013

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Data-driven transit network design at scale,

    D. Bertsimas, Y . S. Ng, and J. Yan, “Data-driven transit network design at scale,”Operations Research, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 1118–1133, 2021

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Optimal design of intermodal mobility networks under uncertainty: Connecting micromobility with mobility-on-demand transit,

    Q. Luo, S. Li, and R. C. Hampshire, “Optimal design of intermodal mobility networks under uncertainty: Connecting micromobility with mobility-on-demand transit,”EURO Journal on Transportation and Logistics, vol. 10, p. 100045, 2021

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    Tlc trip record data

    New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, “Tlc trip record data.”https://www.nyc.gov/site/tlc/ about/tlc-trip-record-data.page, 2025. Accessed: 2025-05-05

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    Planet dump retrieved from https://planet.osm.org

    OpenStreetMap contributors, “Planet dump retrieved from https://planet.osm.org .” https://www. openstreetmap.org, 2017

    work page 2017

  46. [46]

    New York City Transit Subway GTFS Schedule Data

    Metropolitan Transportation Authority, “New York City Transit Subway GTFS Schedule Data.”http://web. mta.info/developers/, 2026. Accessed: 2026-04-27

    work page 2026

  47. [47]

    Second Avenue Subway Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 5B: Transportation-Subway and Commuter Rail,

    Federal Transit Administration and Metropolitan Transportation Authority, “Second Avenue Subway Final Environmental Impact Statement, Chapter 5B: Transportation-Subway and Commuter Rail,” report, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2004

    work page 2004

  48. [48]

    2024 National Transit Summaries and Trends,

    Federal Transit Administration, “2024 National Transit Summaries and Trends,” report, United States Department of Transportation, 2025

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Chapter 6: Bus Transit Capacity,

    National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Chapter 6: Bus Transit Capacity,” inTransit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    r5py: Rapid Realistic Routing with R5 in Python,

    C. Fink, W. Klumpenhouwer, M. Saraiva, R. H. M. Pereira, and H. Tenkanen, “r5py: Rapid Realistic Routing with R5 in Python,” 2022

    work page 2022

  51. [51]

    Cost-based analysis of autonomous mobility services,

    P. M. Bösch, F. Becker, H. Becker, and K. W. Axhausen, “Cost-based analysis of autonomous mobility services,” Transport Policy, vol. 64, pp. 76–91, 2018. 24 A Exactness of Big-M Linearization Suppose zls ∈ {0,1} and 0≤x pt od ≤α od. By introducing the continuous auxiliary variable wod,l,s =x pt od ·z ls ≥0 , the bilinear termx pt od ·z ls is exactly linea...

    work page 2018