European Journal of Operational Research 227 (2013) 142–151

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

European Journal of Operational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor

Innovative Applications of O.R.

An arc cover–path-cover formulation and strategic analysis

of alternative-fuel station locations
Ismail Capar a,⇑, Michael Kuby b, V. Jorge Leon c,d, Yu-Jiun Tsai d
a
Industrial Distribution Program, Texas A&M University, TAMU 3367, College Station, TX 77843, USA
b
School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA
c
Department of Engineering Technology and Industrial Distribution, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
d
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this study, we present a new formulation of the generalized flow-refueling location model that takes
Received 3 April 2012 vehicle range and trips between origin–destination pairs into account. The new formulation, based on
Accepted 19 November 2012 covering the arcs that comprise each path, is more computationally efficient than previous formulations
Available online 5 December 2012
or heuristics. Next, we use the new formulation to provide managerial insights for some key concerns of
the industry, such as: whether infrastructure deployment should focus on locating clusters of facilities
Keywords: serving independent regions or connecting these regions by network of facilities; what is the impact of
Flow refueling
uncertainty in the origin–destination demand forecast; whether station locations will remain optimal
Alternative-fuel vehicle
Electric vehicle
as higher-range vehicles are introduced; and whether infrastructure developers should be willing to
Fuel station location pay more for stations at higher-cost intersections. Experiments with real and random data sets are
Fueling infrastructure encouraging for the industry, as optimal locations tend to be robust under various conditions.
Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction Motivated by the need to develop infrastructure to facilitate

In response to concerns about oil prices and environmental
problems, automotive companies have started to commercialize
alternative-fuel vehicles (AFVs) using forms of energy such as com-
pressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG, or pro-
pane), hydrogen, biodiesel, ethanol, and electric vehicles (EVs).
Initial inroads into the consumer marketplace were led by flex-fuel
vehicles that can burn gasoline or ethanol (or diesel or biodiesel),
and by gas-electric hybrids. However, some original equipment
manufacturers have introduced pure AFVs that cannot refuel at
ubiquitous gas or diesel stations when running low, including the
Honda Civic GX which runs on CNG, Honda FCX Clarity that runs
on hydrogen, and a variety of all-electric models.
Studies have shown that lack of refueling infrastructure is one of
the most important disadvantages that AFVs face even when they
have similar range and safety perception to gasoline vehicles
(Melendez and Milbrandt, 2006a,b; Melendez et al., 2007). Hence,
building an easily accessible network of service stations where AFVs
can be refueled would promote more widespread use. Otherwise,
AFVs will be mostly available to early adopters with high incomes
who can afford to buy a secondary vehicle for use on a limited num-
ber of feasible trips. Private companies and public agencies have be-
gun deploying stations in many countries around the world.
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 979 862 8312; fax: +1 979 845 4980.
E-mail address: capar@tamu.edu (I. Capar).
adoption of AFVs, this paper introduces a new efficient formulation
for the problem of locating a set of facilities to refuel round trips
between origin–destination (OD) pairs while considering the lim-
ited driving range of vehicles. Second, utilizing the new model,
key strategic questions regarding the deployment of alternative-
fuel stations (AFSs) are studied. These questions address issues
such as: whether infrastructure deployment should focus on locat-
ing clusters of facilities serving independent regions or connecting
these regions by network of facilities; whether station locations
will remain optimal as higher-range vehicles are introduced; what
is the impact of uncertainty in the origin–destination demand fore-
cast; and whether infrastructure developers should be willing to
pay more for stations at higher-cost intersections.
2. Literature review
This study is related to several streams of research on facility
location optimization: the p-median, maximal covering, network
interdiction, network sensor, flow interception, and flow refueling
problems.
The p-median model minimizes the total weighted distance
travelled from each demand node to the closest built facility
(Hakimi, 1964; ReVelle and Swain, 1970). Nicholas et al. (2004),
Nicholas and Ogden (2006), and Greene et al. (2008) applied the
p-median model to locate fuel stations using heuristics. Lin et al.

0377-2217/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier B.V.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2012.11.033
 I. Capar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 227 (2013) 142–151
Notation
Indexes and sets
N set of nodes constituting the transportation network
N = {1, 2, . . . , n}
M the set of origin–destination nodes where M # N
i, j, k indexes for potential facilities/candidate sites/nodes
q the index for OD pairs (and the path between them)
Q the set of OD pairs
aj,k a directional arc starting from node j and ending at node
k yq
Aq set of directional arcs on path q, sorted from origin to
destination and back to origin
K qj;k set of candidate sites, which can refuel the directional
arc aj,k in Aq
(2008) also used an approach similar to the p-median model but
considered vehicle-miles traveled rather than population to weight
the demand nodes. Goodchild and Noronha (1987) use the p-med-
ian as one of the objectives in a multi-objective model to maximize
the market share of a refueling firm.
The goal of max covering location problem (MCLP) is to locate p
facilities on a network while maximizing the total population at
stationary nodes covered by facilities located within a given dis-
tance or travel time (Church and ReVelle, 1974). The basic MCLP,
in which only a single location is required to serve a node, cannot
address incidents requiring response of multiple units (Green,
1984). Consequently, Hogan and ReVelle (1986) extended the ini-
tial MCLP model to incorporate backup coverage. Batta and Man-
nur (1990) also proposed a model to locate several facilities to
serve a node, but it addresses neither the spatial relationship
among facilities nor paths through a network.
In contrast, Hodgson (1990) and Berman et al. (1992) consider
traffic flow passing by as the primary demand for businesses such
as convenience stores, gasoline stations, fast-food restaurants, and
billboards. The flow-intercepting location problem (FILP) locates
facilities to serve traffic flows that can be intercepted or captured
if the flow starts, ends, or passes by an open facility. Readers are
referred to Zeng et al. (2010) for a recent review of FILP and its
extensions.
Kuby and Lim (2005) tackled the requirement of visiting multi-
ple service stations along a path by pointing out that the FILP mod-
el is not applicable if vehicles have a short range compared to their
length of trips. They introduced the flow-refueling location prob-
lem (FRLP), which explicitly takes the range of vehicles into consid-
eration and locates p facilities to maximize the traffic flow
captured. Although their MIP formulation has been successfully
applied to small networks, Lim and Kuby (2010) showed that a
pre-processing stage used to generate all the combinations of facil-
ities that can refuel a path is computationally burdensome, and it is
therefore practically impossible to use for large-scale problems.
They therefore proposed greedy, greedy substitution, and genetic
algorithms to solve larger problems.
Other authors have recently developed FRLP extensions and
alternative solution methods that continue to employ path-based
demands that may need to be covered by more than one station
based on the vehicle driving range. Wang and Lin (2009) proposed
a set-covering FRLP to minimize the cost of facilities while refuel-
ing 100% of the traffic. Their approach imposes the range restric-
tion by keeping track explicitly of the fuel remaining on each
vehicle at each node on the path. Wang and Wang (2010) extended
Wang and Lin’s (2009) model to a multi-objective case, where the
second objective is to maximize the flow covered. Capar and Kuby
(2012) proposed a new FRLP formulation that eliminates the need
143
Parameters
R the range of vehicles
fq volume of traffic flow on path q
p the number of stations to be located
Decision variables
zi binary variable; 1 if service station is built at node i, 0
otherwise
binary variable; 1 if the flow on path q is refueled, 0
otherwise
for pre-generation of facility combinations that can cover longer
paths by incorporating the FRLP’s underlying logic into the con-
straints. Their formulation solves as fast as or faster than the heu-
ristic approaches presented by Lim and Kuby (2010).
While these new approaches to formulate the FRLP overcame
shortcomings of the original Kuby and Lim (2005) formulation,
there is substantial room for improvement. The Capar and Kuby
(2012) approach requires a large number of new variables and con-
straints—as well as different types of variables and constraints—to
enforce the exact same covering rules for round trips. In addition,
Wang and Lin (2009) and Wang and Wang (2010) formulations
explicitly consider the trips of individual vehicles and needs addi-
tional input about the initial fuel level at the beginning of a trip.
Their models use a vehicle refueling constraint that ‘‘shows the
remaining fuel at a station equals the remaining fuel plus the refu-
eling at the prior station minus the fuel consumption between
them’’ (Wang and Lin, 2009). Their numerical experiments as-
sumed vehicles start with a full tank (e.g. home refueling), though
the model can handle any assumption about the initial fuel level.
In addition to the computational issues discussed above,
researchers have applied the flow-refueling location model (FRLM)
to several strategic issues. Upchurch et al. (2009) developed a
capacitated formulation for the FRLM. Upchurch and Kuby (2010)
compared the FRLM and the p-median model and found that the
p-median model is more likely to favor denser clusters of popula-
tion whereas the FRLM favors intersections where large flow vol-
umes can be intercepted.
Finally, the FRLM has some similarities and differences with
network sensor and interdiction problems. In location problems
in sensor networks, the objective involves counting or identifying
moving objects through the network (Liu and Towsley, 2004). Var-
ious types of sensors and problem types have been studied, with the
most relevant being optimal location of path ID and vehicle ID sen-
sors (Gentili and Mirchandani, 2012). Network sensor problems,
however, do not have to account for the entirety of every arc along
detected paths, whereas the FRLM requires an approach that can
project coverage forward along a path by only a limited distance
(the range of vehicles) and must account for the entire length of
any covered path. Less closely related is the network interdiction
problem, which aims to eliminate a subset of arcs from a network
to minimize the amount of flow that is able to pass through the net-
work from a single origin to a single destination, subject to a budget
constraint (Altner et al., 2010; Cappanera and Scaparra, 2011).
3. Problem definition and formulation
The objective of the FRLP is to locate p facilities on a network to
maximize the traffic flow refueled given the range of vehicles.
144 I. Capar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 227 (2013) 142–151
(Note that we use the words ‘‘refueled,’’ ‘‘recharged,’’ and ‘‘served’’
interchangeably, as well as ‘‘tank’’ or ‘‘battery’’.) A traffic flow is
considered as refueled if vehicles starting from the origin can reach
the destination and return to the origin without running out of
fuel. The following paragraphs discuss the modeling assumptions,
explain how different factors impact successful completion of
round trips using a simple example, and present the modeling
notation.
The problem presented in this section is formulated by utilizing
assumptions common to FILP/FRLP-related research (e.g. Hodgson,
1990; Berman et al., 1995; Kuby and Lim, 2005; Zeng et al., 2010;
Capar and Kuby, 2012). These assumptions are: (1) the traffic be-
tween an OD pair flows through a single path (typically the short-
est or least-travel-time path); (2) the traffic volume between OD
pairs are known in advance; (3) drivers have full knowledge of
location of fueling stations along their path and refuel as needed
to successfully complete their round trips; (4) only nodes of the
network are considered as possible locations of refueling stations;
(5) vehicles have similar driving ranges; (6) fuel consumption is di-
rectly proportional to distance traveled; and (7) refueling stations
are uncapacitated.
These seven assumptions are not as limiting as they first appear.
First, existing FILP/FRLP formulations and the formulation in this
paper can be easily extended to the case with multiple routes.
Second, when OD trip matrix is not available, it can be estimated
from arc flow information (Cascetta and Nguyen, 1988) or gravity
model (Kuby et al., 2009). Third, early adopters tend to be aware
of the scarcity of AFSs and highly likely to learn the location of
refueling stations (e.g. several web sites provide location of AFSs
in most areas, e.g. http://www.cleancarmaps.com and http://
www.afdc.energy.gov). Fourth, while nodes were shown to be a fi-
nite dominating set for the FILP (Berman et al., 1995; i.e. the opti-
mal location of facilities will be subset of nodes of the network),
Kuby and Lim (2005) showed that the same is not true for the FRLP.
However, the same authors later showed that facilities along arcs
tend to be beneficial only if the range of vehicles is short compared
to the length of arcs on a network, and consequently locating on
arcs will not have a significant effect on real transportation net-
works except in remote areas (Kuby and Lim, 2007). Fifth, the
new model presented below is flexible and efficient enough to han-
dle multiple vehicle types with different ranges. Sixth, the same is
true for handling variation in fuel consumption based on different
driving conditions, terrain, etc. in different directions. Seventh, de-
spite the absence of capacity restrictions, the new model is still
useful for locating initial AFSs for several reasons. The simpler
uncapacitated formulation will provide insights and uncover
important structural properties of the problem. Also, in the early
years of AFV adoption, deployed facilities will probably not be used
at full capacity. Finally, the solution to the uncapacitated problem
can be used as an initial solution for the capacitated problem. For
instance, the results can be considered as prioritized locations for
refueling stations and actual capacity at these locations can be
determined using a post-processing algorithm.
Our model is consistent with the starting tank level assumption
of the original FRLM, although we implement it differently here. It
is consistent in the sense that for an OD pair to be served, stations
must be placed on the path in such a way that a round trip can be
completed repeatedly. In the original FRLM (Kuby and Lim, 2005),
this idea was implemented by assuming that vehicles start at the
origin with a half tank, based on the rationale that if a vehicle could
reach the first station down the path starting with a half tank, it
could fill up at that same station on the way back and return to
the origin with a half tank, and be able to repeat the same trip
(or any other similarly feasible trip) after that. In contrast, our for-
mulation presented here determines the starting fuel level based
on the location of AFSs. If there is an existing AFS at the origin
node, the model will consider that trips starting from the origin
node will have full fuel tank or battery, but if there is no existing
station at the origin, trips will start with the remaining fuel from
the last fill-up on the same path. Assuming symmetrical energy
consumption in both directions of each arc, the approach taken
here will also ensure that every trip starts with at least half a tank,
but the new approach is superior in that it can be modified to deal
with asymmetrical energy consumption. This approach also con-
trasts with that of Wang and Lin (2009), which is both more flex-
ible in the sense that the user can specify any initial tank level,
and more limiting in the sense that it must assume some starting
fuel amount.
In the FRLP, successful completion of a round trip depends on
factors such as structure of the highway network, location of AFSs,
and range of vehicles. We briefly present how these factors affect
the FRLP through a simple example using the network in Fig. 1.
For example, when the range of vehicles is less than 60 units, driv-
ers have no chance of completing their round trip even when sta-
tions are built at all the nodes. When the range is 60 units, AFSs
must be built at all nodes (i.e. z1, z2, z3, z4). When the range is equal
to 80 units, a set of three stations (i.e. z1, z3, z4 or z2, z3, z4) would be
enough to refuel this round trip. In this specific instance, when a
solution with z1 is selected, vehicles will start with a full tank from
the origin (z1). If a solution with z2 but without z1 is selected, then
the vehicle returning from the destination refuels at z2 and reaches
the origin by driving 40 units and will have enough fuel to travel 40
units during the next trip to reach z2 for refueling. When the range
is 260 units or greater, a single refueling station located at any
node is enough to complete the round trip between z1 and z4,
which effectively turns the constraint for this path into a flow-
intercepting constraint.
X
AC—PC Max fq yq ð1Þ
q2Q
X
s:t: zi P y q ; 8q 2 Q ; aj;k 2 Aq ð2Þ
q
i2K
j;k
X
zi ¼ p ð3Þ
i
yq ; zi 2 f0; 1g; 8q 2 Q; i 2 N ð4Þ
The objective of the AC–PC FRLM is to maximize the round-trip
traffic volume served. The key innovation of this new formulation
is constraints (2), which allow the FRLP to be formulated without
use of facility combinations. Constraints (2) make sure that a flow
is considered to be refueled only if each directional arc on a path q
is travelable after refueling at one of the open stations. This is en-
sured by writing a separate instance of Constraint (2) for all direc-
tional arcs on each path q. In other words, if every directional arc
along the path is traversable after refueling at one of the built facil-
ities, then the full round trip is refuelable. The set K qj;k is the set of
candidate nodes i that make it possible to drive across the entire
distance from node j to k if a driver completely refills their tank
with range R at i. These ‘‘cover sets’’ are easily generated. For exam-
ple, in Fig. 1, all nodes (i.e. z1, z2, z3, z4) are considered as candidate
sites and the trip will be refuelable when drivers are able to travel
Destination
60
Origin
a43
a21 30 a34 z4
40 a32
z1 a23
a12 z3
z2
Fig. 1. An example network with a single OD pair.
 I. Capar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 227 (2013) 142–151
through all arcs (i.e. a12, a23, a34, a43, a32, and a21). When the range
is 90 units, a driver can travel all the way across a12 if it refuels at
either z1 or z2 (or both [z1 + z2 P y]). While z1 allows refueling at
the beginning of a trip, having z2 open allows the driver to refuel
while returning from the destination and be able to reach z2 on
the next round trip without running out of fuel. Similarly, one
can show that only refueling at z4 allows traveling through
a43 [z4 P y]. Constraint (3) makes sure that only p facilities are
opened. The last set of constraints defines binary variables.
As mentioned earlier, the AC–PC model is significantly different
from previous FRLP formulations. First, unlike Kuby and Lim’s
(2005) model, there is no computationally intensive pre-processing
stage, which was proven to grow exponentially as the number of
nodes increases along a path (Capar and Kuby, 2012). Second, while
Capar and Kuby’s (2012) model similarly does not require enumer-
ation of facility combinations that can cover each path, their model
focuses on covering the nodes of each path, whereas the AC–PC
model focuses on the arcs. As a result of checking whether all nodes
are covered on each path instead of all arcs, Capar and Kuby’s
(2012) node-cover model adds four variables and up to four con-
straints for each node on each path to determine whether that path
is fully refuelable, compared with at most one variable (added only
when this new node was not part of any other path) and two con-
straints for the AC–PC model. Consequently, the new AC–PC creates
a much more compact model, which can be solved in shorter time
when compared with both previous formulations.
4. Strategic questions
In addition to proposing a more efficient and compact formula-
tion of the FRLP, another objective of this paper is to use the AC–PC
model and introduce some extensions of it to provide managerial
insights to several key questions for deploying AFS infrastructure.
After analyzing the current infrastructure challenges for AFVs, we
identified four questions as high priority strategic issues. In addi-
tion, we used vehicle range as a sensitivity parameter and evalu-
ated its impact on key questions when appropriate.
(1) What is the minimum number of stations that can refuel a
certain percentage of traffic flow?
(2) Should infrastructure deployment projects focus on locating
clusters of facilities serving independent regions or connect-
ing these regions by network of facilities?
(3) What are the impacts of the demand forecast on the location
of fuel stations?
(4) What is the effect of variations in costs of land given an
investment budget constraint?
A large number of fuel stations may be needed if the goal is to re-
fuel all trips on a road network. However, it is impractical to launch
the infrastructure deployment projects by building all the required
stations at once because the return on investment may not be
enough to justify such a decision. Although it is important to know,
private and public organizations may not always have a clear idea of
how many stations are needed. Instead, they may have an objective
about a certain percentage or absolute amount of trips or population
to be covered in terms of their targeted market share or policy
concerns. For example, the European Union in 2009 set a goal of
10% market share for biofuels, and 20% for all alternative fuels
including natural gas, by 2020. The Canadian Province of Ontario
is aiming for one out of 20 cars to be EVs by 2020 (http://www.auto-
motive-fleet.com/News/Story/2011/03/Ontario-Adds-EV-Charging-
Stations.aspx). In these and similar cases around the world, these
targets can be translated into a flow coverage objective, which is
defined as the percentage of round trips refueled by AFSs.
145
Once the number of stations is determined, the next issue for the
infrastructure builders to answer is whether they should locate
clusters of facilities serving independent regions or connect these re-
gions by network of facilities. It is commonly expected that AFVs
will be mainly used for short-distance trips during early stages of
their adoption (Melendez and Milbrandt, 2006b). As a result, it
looks like a reasonable strategy for an infrastructure builder to ini-
tially focus on building fuel stations that mainly service travel with-
in a metropolitan conurbation. For example, Coulomb Technologies
received stimulus funding to deploy EV charging stations in metro-
politan regions such as Austin, TX, Detroit, MI, Los Angeles, CA, New
York, NY, and Orlando, FL. On the other hand, the state of Texas
established the ‘‘Texas Clean Transportation Triangle’’ to build a
natural gas vehicle corridor among Dallas, Houston, and San Anto-
nio (http://etuo.uh.edu/ngva), and several EU countries are propos-
ing a GasHighway network of CNG stations from Scandinavia to
Italy (http://web.etaflorence.it/uploads/media/OE5.5_paper.pdf).
Hence, using the AC–PC model, we will investigate whether infra-
structure builder should initially consider deploying AFSs as inde-
pendent cluster of facilities serving a small region (e.g. a city) or
should they connect with other cities to serve larger regions.
One of the difficult issues facing infrastructure developers is
uncertainty in demand; not only are long-distance OD flow matri-
ces not always available, but drivers in different zones are not all
equally likely to adopt AFVs. Consequently, this creates uncertainty
about the quantity and locations of AFSs. Kim (2010) developed a
spatial decision support system for the FRLM that allows users to
weight OD trip volumes according to the socio-economic charac-
teristics of the origin zones. It is crucial to determine the sensitivity
of locations to changes in the flow matrix.
Another question facing decision-makers is whether it is worth-
while to build stations at or near busy intersections or downtown
areas where real estate prices may be higher. Are the best locations
so much better than the lesser locations that they remain worth
building even when their higher land acquisition costs are taken
into account? Or are there major tradeoff gains to be had by trad-
ing off one or more good locations for the chance to spread that
cost over a larger number of stations at sites that are not quite as
good?
5. Model extensions
To answer the strategic questions discussed in Section 4, the fol-
lowing extensions of the AC–PC model are introduced. In addition,
for some experiments, real-world and random network data are
further processed to make the analysis possible.
The minimum numbers of AFSs required to service specific per-
centages of flow are determined using a set covering (SC) version of
the AC–PC model (SC–AC–PC). The SC–AC–PC model is created by
switching the objective of the AC–PC model with the Constraint
(3) and modifying them accordingly:
X
SC—AC—PC Min zi ð5Þ
i
s:t:
X
zi P y q ; 8q 2 Q ; aj;k 2 Aq ð2Þ
q
i2K j;k
X
fq yq P S ð6Þ
q2Q
yq ; zi 2 f0; 1g; 8q 2 Q ; i 2 N ð4Þ
where S represents the objective percentage of flow refueled. In
addition to utilizing the SC–AC–PC model to answer the first
146 I. Capar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 227 (2013) 142–151
question, the model is also utilized for other experiments to create a
tradeoff curve by systematically varying the objective flow coverage
from 10% to 100% in increments of 10%.
The AC–PC model locates p facilities when there are no existing
AFSs. However, in the real world, infrastructure deployment
projects may need to consider pre-existing stations. Hence, a
conditional formulation is utilized to make decisions under such
circumstances. We specifically set zi = 1 for those existing facilities,
and adjust the number of desired facilities appropriately consider-
ing the number of existing facilities.
Finally, a budget-constrained version of the FRLM is created by
P generated for each combination of n (250, 500, 750) and m (30,
replacing constraint (3) with i ci zi 6 B, where B is the total avail-
able budget and ci is the total cost (i.e. land cost plus the construc-
tion cost) of building a station at candidate site i.
6. Numerical experiments
This section on numerical experiments is divided into three
subsections. The first provides the details on the numerical exper-
iments, such as data sets, experiment design, and solution ap-
proach. The second demonstrates the computational benefits of
the new model over the existing ones. Finally, the third subsection
presents the experimental results, analysis and answers to the
strategic questions posed for the deployment of AFSs.
6.1. Data sets and experiment details
The numerical experiments are run using two types of transpor-
tation networks: real-world and random. While the real-world
data sets are used to address the key questions discussed earlier,
random data sets are used to validate and extend the applicability
of these results. The real-world networks for the Florida state high-
way and Orlando metropolitan networks are based on geographic
information system data sets. While the Orlando OD trip matrix
contains intra-city trips ranging from 0.5 to 62 miles (one way),
the state data set focuses primarily on inter-city travels ranging
from 7 to 781 miles (one way). Shortest paths are determined by
minimum travel time based on the posted speed limits of lim-
ited-access highways and a calibrated 15% time penalty on the
posted speed limit for lower functional classes of roads. One key
difference between the data sets is the level of zonal aggregation
of the origins and destinations. In the Orlando data set, 358 original
traffic analysis zones (TAZs) from the Florida Department of Trans-
portation (FDOT) were aggregated to 102 origin and destination
nodes, with more detail in the denser central areas. The Florida
data set uses only 74 origin and destination nodes; most counties
are represented by a single centroid, except for (a) six counties in
the Miami, Tampa–St. Petersburg and Orlando areas that were sub-
divided into 2–3 nodes each and (b) several sparsely populated
counties that were combined into one. In both data sets, short in-
tra-zonal flows are excluded. Another difference is that Orlando’s
trip volumes were based on FDOT data, while Florida’s inter-city
volumes were based on a spatial interaction model. Interested
readers are referred to Kuby et al. (2009) for details of data gener-
ation/collection.
To generate the random data sets, the network size (n) is first
determined; then n points in [0, 1000]2 according to a continuous
uniform distribution are randomly selected. Next, after creating a
full undirected graph over these n nodes with the length of an edge
being the Euclidean distance between two nodes, the minimum
spanning tree is constructed using Kruskal’s (1956) algorithm.
Additional n edges are added to the spanning tree while keeping
the maximum degree of each node at a chosen threshold value of
four. Afterward, m nodes out of n are randomly chosen to be OD
nodes, and the shortest path (Dijkstra’s 1959 algorithm) is
determined for all pairs (m  (m  1)/2). Finally, the traffic flow
for a path q is generated utilizing Fotheringham and O’Kelly’s
(1989) gravity model:
POq PDq
fq ¼
D2q
 
where POq PDq is randomly generated (uniform distribution) popu-
lation of origin (destination) node and Dq is the length of the short-
est path between OD pair. Next, random network data sets are
60) values.
Once data sets are prepared for experiments, specific problem
instances are generated by changing R and p values. Driving ranges
equal to 60, 100, and 200 miles are used for Florida and Orlando
networks, while 250, 375, and 500 units are used for the randomly
generated ones.
To measure the effects of uncertainty in the OD demand fore-
cast, uniformly distributed random demand between [fq  e,
fq + e] is explored, where e is the error percentage between 20%
and 100% with an increment of 20%. To have statistically significant
results, 30 problem instances for each [fq  e, fq + e] range is
generated.
Only Orlando, FL data is used to evaluate the effects of varia-
tions in costs of land under a budget constraint, based on actual
land value data from Orange County Property Appraiser’s Office
within a 1/4 mile buffer around each node. In addition, a uniform
construction cost of $500,000 is used for all stations in addition
to the land cost.
All problem instances are solved using Xpress-MP Version 7.2
on a computer with Windows 7 64-Bit OS, IntelÒ Core™ i5 CPU
at 3.33 gigahertz with 6.0 gigabyte of RAM. Xpress-MP was run
for a maximum of 1 hour for each problem instance.
6.2. Comparison of formulations
The quality of the solutions and running time of the AC–PC for-
mulation in this paper is numerically compared with the ‘‘Node
Cover–Path Cover’’ (NC–PC) formulation1 of Capar and Kuby
(2012), that was shown to be able to handle larger-scale problems
as fast as or faster than the proposed heuristics in the literature.
The version of NC–PC tested in this paper includes improvements
suggested in the original paper to improve its performance; specifi-
cally, a lemma and results of greedy heuristic to prioritize locations
and to provide a cutoff value for branch and bound. As summarized
in Tables 1 and 2, the numerical experiments show that the new for-
mulation takes less CPU time to solve problems to optimality and
improves the best results obtained for problems not solved to opti-
mality. For example, the new model reduced the average solution
time by over 74% and 99% for real-world and random networks,
respectively. In addition, the new formulation outperformed Capar
and Kuby’s (2012) formulation on four out of five problem instances
that were not solved to optimality for Orlando network, whereas
only in one problem instance was it outperformed. One advantage
of Capar and Kuby’s (2012) formulation is that it provides slightly
tighter bounds for problems not solved to optimality, even when
their best obtained solution performs poorly compared to results
from the AC–PC formulation. The reason for the slightly tighter
bound is due to the implemented lemma in the experiments for this
paper.
1
Capar and Kuby (2012) referred to their formulation as the MBIP (Mixed Binary
Integer Program), to contrast it with the slower greedy and genetic heuristic
algorithms. Having now developed a superior MBIP here, we retroactively suggest
Node Cover–Path Cover (NC–PC) as a more descriptive name for Capar and Kuby’s
(2012) MBIP formulation.
 I. Capar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 227 (2013) 142–151 147

Table 1 It is important to carefully interpret the above finding because

Performance comparison between the AC–PC and NC–PC: real-world networks. experiments show these results are sensitive to the structure of
AC–PC NC–PC the highway networks and OD zonation scheme. For example,
Florida Orlando Florida Orlando although the Florida statewide dataset covers a very large geo-
graphical area, it requires fewer AFSs to cover a certain percentage
No. of opt. solutions founda 102 97 85 89
Min solution time (seconds) 2 1 7 2
of traffic volume compared to the Orlando dataset (e.g. when
Avg solution time (seconds) 31 362 982 552 R = 200 miles, four AFSs are required to refuel 60% of the traffic vol-
Min gap (%) – 0.11 0.03 0.01 ume for the Florida dataset, versus 12 AFSs for the Orlando data-
Max gap (%) – 0.24 0.41 0.55 set). This implausible observation indicates that dataset creation
Avg gap (%) – 0.17 0.17 0.27
is crucial for actionable analysis. Considering that the absolute
a
102 Problem instances are solved for each network: R = 60, 100, 200 miles with number of p depends on the level of network detail, it is important
p = 1–25 and then p = 30–70 with an increment of 5. to evaluate p relative to a normalized scale. Accordingly, the per-
centage of p (p%) in proportion to the minimum number of stations
that can cover 100% of traffic flow is used as a normalized scale to
6.3. Experimental strategic analysis evaluate the relationship between the percentage of the total flow
refueled and the required number of stations. For example, Fig. 3a
This section presents the experimental results and respective indicates that 80% of the trips in Orlando could be covered by 34%
analysis to answer the strategic questions posed earlier in the paper. of the total number of stations that would be needed to cover 100%
of the trips. Similarly, Fig. 3b depicts the exponential relationship
6.3.1. What is the minimum number of stations that can refuel a for random data sets as less than 19% of the total number of sta-
certain percentage of traffic flow? tions required to refuel 100% of the total flow will be enough to
Experiments with real-world and random transportation net- serve over 60% of the traffic. Therefore, experiment results still sug-
works show that a small number of strategically located stations gest that, within the context of any given network dataset, a small
will be enough to cover a high percentage of traffic flow. Hence, number of strategically located stations will be enough to cover a
adoption of AFVs can be facilitated through deployment of rela- high percentage of traffic flow.
tively small number of AFSs sited at the right locations. For exam- As expected, Fig. 2a also indicates that the higher the ranges of
ple, Fig. 2a indicates that, for the Florida state highway network, vehicles, the fewer AFSs are required to refuel the total potential
only two stations are needed to refuel 30% of the total potential flow. However, interestingly, the range of the vehicles does not sig-
flow for all ranges and four (3) stations are needed to refuel 50% nificantly affect the minimum number of AFSs when objective per-
of the flow when R = 60 miles (R = 100 and 200 miles). Similar cent flow refueled is relatively small (e.g. 660% for the Florida State
trends are also observed for the Orlando network (Fig. 2b) and ran- Highway network). The range of vehicles becomes a significant fac-
dom networks. tor for higher targeted percentage of flow requirements because

Table 2
Performance comparison between AC–PC and NC–PC: random networks.

AC–PC NC–PC
Number of nodes (n) 250 500 750 250 500 750
Number of OD nodes (m) 30 60 30 60 30 60 30 60 30 60 30 60
No. of opt. solutions founda 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 26 30 25 26 24
Min solution time 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.4 1.4 1.7 4.5 2.0 5.7 2.5 7.0
Avg solution time 0.4 4.4 1.4 4.1 1.7 12.2 10.6 564.7 117.0 746.7 404.3 852.7
Min gap (%) – – – – – – – 1.47 – 0.18 1.27 0.84
Max gap (%) – – – – – – – 3.69 – 3.26 5.48 5.77
Avg gap (%) – – – – – – – 2.33 – 1.36 2.81 3.20
a
30 Problem instances are solved for each network: R = 250, 375, 500 units, with p matching the objective flow coverage from 10% to 100% in increments of 10%.

Fig. 2. Relationship between objective traffic flow and the minimum number of AFSs required.
148 I. Capar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 227 (2013) 142–151
Fig. 3. Relationship between objective traffic flow and p%.
while the initial stations are located at places where they can re-
fuel high amounts of flow, later stations are added to serve small
flow amounts and/or flow requiring multiple stations along their
path. For these instances, having a higher-range vehicle reduces
the number of AFSs by either reducing the number AFSs needed
to travel between a specific OD pair or allowing an AFS to serve
additional trips between OD pairs that are not refuelable with a
lower-range vehicle. Note that these observations are not evident
with the Orlando dataset because even 60 miles allows over 99%
of the trips to be completed with a single tank of fuel. Hence, there
is not much room for improvement.
6.3.2. Should infrastructure deployment projects focus on locating
clusters of facilities serving independent regions or connecting these
regions by network of facilities?
Numerical experiments indicate that the choice between
clustering and connecting deployment strategies is affected by
the range of vehicles considered and number of AFS to be located.
Fig. 4 presents optimal stations and covered paths for p = 4 for
inter-city trips in Florida. When the vehicle range is 60 miles,
Fig. 4. Locations of AFSs and paths covered with ranges of 60 miles and 200 miles,
p = 4.
primarily short-distance intra-city trips are served, which results
in a network of infrastructure mainly serving disconnected sub-re-
gions (e.g. individual cities such as Miami and Tampa) more heav-
ily in the early stages of AFSs deployment. As the range increases to
R = 200, a station in downtown Orlando replaces one in the Miami
area, creating three widely separated metro areas with at least one
station, but because of the long range, trips can be made between
them, and nodes up to 100 miles away can make there-and-back
trips to the stations located in central Orlando and Tampa. The re-
sults presented for p = 15 in Fig. 5 shows that the additional 11 sta-
tions allow trips to be made between Orlando and Tampa when
range is 60 miles, but Miami is still disconnected from the other
two regions. But when range is 200 miles, additional fuel stations
are used to make long distance trips possible among all four of
Florida’s major metropolitan regions, including Jacksonville.
Hence, focusing on clusters of independent regions may be a viable
strategy when the vehicle range is considerably less than the aver-
age distance between OD pairs or the number of AFSs to be located
Fig. 5. Locations of AFSs and paths covered with ranges of 60 miles and 200 miles,
p = 15.
 I. Capar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 227 (2013) 142–151 149

is relatively small. Along the same lines, as the range of vehicles in-
creases, the trip length becomes less important for infrastructure
builders and results favor a network of facilities connecting many
regions to each other.

6.3.3. What are the impacts of the demand forecast on the location of
fuel stations?
Because AFVs are a relatively new phenomenon and future
adoption rates will depend on various uncertain factors including
oil prices, technological improvement, price, and government sub-
sidies, infrastructure companies need to locate initial stations
based on demand forecasts. Hence, it is important to understand
how locations of facilities and consequently the traffic flow refu-
eled will be impacted from OD matrix forecast error.
Fig. 6 shows the impact of locating stations based on the fore-
casted flows. The impact is measured by comparing the actual flow
refueled considering location of AFSs based on forecasted and exact
traffic flow information. For example, when infrastructure builder
deploys an initial set of stations to refuel 20% of all traffic based
on forecasted flows and observes the exact flow after building
the stations, the coverage difference will be less than 2% even with
±100% forecast error compared to locating these stations based on
the exact demand information. Although the gap initially increases
and then goes down as the targeted traffic flow increases, it is most
sensitive to input parameters (i.e. forecast error and vehicle range)
when targeted flow coverage is between 40% and 80%. Moreover,
the maximum gap for all e values were consistently measured at
60% targeted flow coverage and ranged from 2.53% (e = 20%) to
5.22% (e = 100%). The gap rapidly diminishes after 80% targeted
flow coverage because even 100% forecast errors would not be en-
ough to shift locations as majority of OD pairs will be refueled
without any change. The lack of similar behavior for up to 40% tar-
geted flow coverage can be explained using the same reasoning.
In summary, forecast error has limited negative effects on the
location of AFSs and amount of flow refueled. Its negative impacts
diminish quickly once 80% or more of the flow is covered. In addi-
tion, forecast error does not increase the minimum number of
facilities to refuel 100% of the traffic flow in the future. These re-
sults may be due to the huge number of cells in these OD matrices,
as well as the fact that even a doubling or halving of a small cell
value will do little to move a station that has been located to serve
the huge flows that exist between nearby large population centers.
As a result, organizations planning to deploy AFSs but waiting to
collect actual demand information could actually start deploying
these stations as initial AFSs will not be redundant in the future
and actually accelerate the adoption of these vehicles by providing
the much needed infrastructure. We speculate that the impact of
Fig. 7. Impact of the total construction budget on the percentage of flow refueled.
demand uncertainty is more likely to be felt when considering sta-
tion capacities, which will become a more important issue as the
market grows after the initial roll-out of stations and vehicles.
6.3.4. What is the effect of variations in costs of land given an
investment budget constraint?
Many of the best-known public-sector facility location models—
such as the p-median, max cover, and p-center models—implicitly
assume that all facilities cost the same to build, whereas many pri-
vate-sector models such as fixed-charge models take facility
investment costs into account explicitly. Early AFS networks, how-
ever, are often public–private partnerships or private develop-
ments with partial government subsidies. Fuel stations tend to
be placed at or near coveted high-traffic intersections, implying
that real-estate acquisition costs may be a hindrance to affording
the optimal set of stations. Analyses of the Orlando dataset with
actual land-cost data confirm this intuition. As Fig. 7 shows, as
the allocated station-building and land-acquisition budget in-
creases (measured on a per-site basis so that a curve can be made
for multiple p values), a higher percentage of flows can be covered
with the same number of stations as budgets are increased. By
making it possible to obtain sites at the busiest, most expensive
intersections that are on more shortest-paths, a million dollar per
site budget can add 15% to the flows covered.
Table 3 shows that higher budgets do not uniformly lead to
building at more expensive intersections. The optimal strategy
could also be to re-purpose the budget to obtaining a greater num-
ber of stations. In this experiment assuming a base construction
cost of $500K, the optimality of building a sixth station does not
materialize until the budget reaches $750K per site, or a total of
$4.25 million. With a $5 million budget, the model chooses to build
seven stations, including stations at three nodes (176, 180, and
269) that were also optimal with the smallest budget. This is
why the p = 5 scenario, where the model can choose any five sta-
tions assuming they all cost the same, does better than any of

Table 3
Comparison of AFS locations selected under varying budget constraints.

p = 5 (no $575K $625K $675K $750K $1000K

land cost) per site per site per site per site per site
Location ID
29 176 126 29 66 29
176 180 176 176 126 66
202 198 202 202 176 126
219 219 219 219 202 144
222 269 269 222 219 176
269 180
202
Fig. 6. The relationship between percent flow refueled based on forecasted flows 269
and average gap.
150 I. Capar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 227 (2013) 142–151
the other budget scenarios where the model cannot afford more
than five stations, but not as well as the two highest budget scenar-
ios where six or seven stations can be built. These scenarios indi-
cate that it may be suboptimal for energy companies to assume
that land costs do not need to be taken into account.
7. Conclusions
Many studies show that lack of an easily accessible network of
fuel stations is one of the major barriers for large-scale adoption of
alternative-fuel vehicles. In this study, we introduced a generalized
FRLM formulation with more flexibility and applicability to differ-
ent fuel types and geographic scales. The presented model is more
compact and solved the problems 74–99% faster than the most effi-
cient FRLM formulation in the literature. Having a compact formu-
lation that can be solved faster will allow involved parties to work
with more realistic problem sizes for infrastructure deployment.
Next, using the presented formulation, we investigated a set of
strategic questions from the perspective of organizations deploy-
ing alternative-fuel stations. Experiments on real-world and ran-
dom networks showed that a relatively small number of stations
are usually able to refuel a large percentage of the total inter-zonal
traffic flow volume, although this of course depends on the detail
of the road network, aggregation of the zone system, and the vehi-
cle range relative to the path lengths.
Given the key role of driving range in FRLM research, it is not
surprising that range plays an important role in strategic decision
making. The question of whether to cluster stations in isolated
metropolitan areas or use them to connect separated clusters de-
pends on both the number of stations and range of the vehicles.
Connecting regions becomes more beneficial with larger station-
building budgets and longer vehicle ranges. Yet, at the same time,
if the very first group of stations is deployed with short-range vehi-
cles in mind, and then technology leads to an increase in range, it
will have little effect on the total number of stations eventually
needed to meet a certain objective flow coverage with the long-
er-range vehicles. This is because traffic patterns will continue to
funnel heavy flows through the same junctions regardless of the
range. Therefore, despite the prominent role played by range in
the FRLM, fear of future range change should not inhibit infrastruc-
ture companies from rolling out the initial networks to help break
the chicken-and-egg cycle.
What-if scenarios using actual land-acquisition cost data in Or-
lando indicate that it is worthwhile for AFS companies to take land
costs into account. Companies may not actually be able to acquire
the sites that were optimal in a model that used a p-facility con-
straint. Likewise, if the budget is high enough, companies may be
able to provide a substantially higher level of coverage by shifting
budget to building a larger number of stations, which they can do
by putting some at less-expensive sites.
In contrast to the results for land costs, even large errors in the
cell values of the OD flow matrix have only a small effect on cov-
erage and optimal location. The results from these random exper-
iments in Orlando are consistent with the results from Kim (2010)
using flows weighted towards likely early adopters. These results
may have to do with the fact that stations serving neighborhoods
in the FRLM are not necessarily located in or near those neighbor-
hoods, but are often placed at locations that serve paths from those
neighborhoods and from many other neighborhoods as well. Thus,
uncertain AFV adoption and flow forecasts should not deter infra-
structure developers from moving ahead with their initial deploy-
ments. Demand uncertainty may gradually become a bigger issue
for network planning as the initial transition period gives way to
market expansion and station capacity starts to become a more
significant constraint on the level of service. A more efficient
formulation for the capacitated FRLM (Upchurch et al., 2009) is
an important direction for future research.
Many similar strategic dilemmas await the energy companies
that are now beginning to plan the station networks that are nec-
essary to convince drivers to switch from gasoline-powered to
alternative-fuel vehicles. FRLM-type models featuring path de-
mands and range restrictions may require extensive modification
to apply to vehicles such as gas-electric hybrids and gas–ethanol
flex-fuel vehicles, or to Levels 1 and 2 charging stations with their
long charging times. They are, however, directly applicable to Level
3 fast charging, battery switching, and a variety of liquid and gas-
eous alternative fuels. In addition, such models could be applied to
other path-based, range-restricted phenomena, such as crew
switching. This paper has demonstrated that the arc cover–path
cover formulation of the flow-refueling location model has the
computational efficiency, flexibility, and applicability to answer
many additional strategic questions for a wide variety of fuel types,
station types, and geographic regions.
References
Altner, D.S., Ergun, O., Uhan, N.A., 2010. The maximum flow network interdiction
problem: valid inequalities, integrality gaps, and approximability. Operations
Research Letters 38 (1), 33–38.
Batta, R., Mannur, N.R., 1990. Covering-location models for emergency situations
that require multiple response units. Management Science 36 (1), 16–23.
Berman, O., Larson, R.C., Fouska, N., 1992. Optimal location of discretionary service
facilities. Transportation Science 26 (23), 201–211.
Berman, O., Bertsimas, D., Larson, R., 1995. Locating discretionary service facilities,
II: maximizing market size, minimizing inconvenience. Operations Research 43
(4), 623–632.
Capar, I., Kuby, M., 2012. An efficient formulation of the flow-refueling location
model for alternative-fuel stations. IIE Transactions 44 (8), 622–636.
Cappanera, P., Scaparra, M.P., 2011. Optimal allocation of protective resources in
shortest-path networks. Transportation Science 45 (1), 64–80.
Cascetta, E., Nguyen, S., 1988. A unified framework for estimating or updating
origin/destination matrices from traffic counts. Transportation Research Part B
22 (6), 437–455.
Church, R., ReVelle, C., 1974. The maximal covering location problem. Papers in
Regional Science 32 (1), 101–118.
Dijkstra, E.W., 1959. A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numerische
Mathematik 1 (1), 269–271.
Fotheringham, A.S., O’Kelly, M.E., 1989. Spatial Interaction Models: Formulations
and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gentili, M., Mirchandani, P.B., 2012. Locating sensors on traffic networks: models,
challenges and research opportunities. Transportation Research Part C:
Emerging Technologies 24, 227–255.
Goodchild, M.F., Noronha, V.N., 1987. Location–Allocation and Impulsive Shopping:
The Case of Gasoline Retailing. Spatial Analysis and Location–Allocation Models.
Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 121–136.
Green, L., 1984. A multiple dispatch queueing model of police patrol operations.
Management Science 30 (6), 653–664.
Greene, D.L., Leiby, P.N., James, B., Perez, J., Melendez, M., Milbrandt, A., Unnasch, S.,
Hooks, M., 2008. Analysis of the Transition to Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles and
the Potential Hydrogen Energy Infrastructure Requirements. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2008/30.
Hakimi, S.L., 1964. Optimum locations of switching centers and the absolute centers
and medians of graph. Operations Research 12 (3), 450–459.
Hodgson, M.J., 1990. A flow-capturing location–allocation model. Geographical
Analysis 22 (3), 270–279.
Hogan, K., ReVelle, C., 1986. Concepts and applications of backup coverage.
Management Science 32 (11), 1434–1444.
Kim, J.-G., 2010. Location of Refueling Stations for Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Considering Driver Deviation Behavior and Uneven Consumer Demand:
Model, Heuristics, and GIS. PhD Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe,
AZ.
Kruskal, J.B., 1956. On the shortest spanning tree of a graph and the traveling
salesman problem. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 7 (1),
48–50.
Kuby, M., Lim, S., 2005. The flow-refueling location problem for alternative-fuel
vehicles. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 39 (2), 125–145.
Kuby, M., Lim, S., 2007. Location of alternative-fuel stations using the flow-refueling
location model and dispersion of candidate sites on arcs. Networks and Spatial
Economics 7, 129–152.
Kuby, M., Lines, L., Schultz, R., Xie, Z., Kim, J.-G., Lim, S., 2009. Optimization of
hydrogen stations in Florida using the flow-refueling location model.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 34 (15), 6045–6064.
Lim, S., Kuby, M., 2010. Heuristic algorithms for siting alternative-fuel stations
using the flow-refueling location model. European Journal of Operational
Research 204 (1), 51–61.
 I. Capar et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 227 (2013) 142–151
Lin, Z., Ogden, J., Fan, Y., Chen, C., 2008. The fuel-travel-back approach to hydrogen
station siting. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 33 (12), 3096–
3101.
Liu, B., Towsley, D., 2004. A study of the coverage of large-scale sensor networks. In:
IEEE International Conference on Mobile Ad-hoc and Sensor Systems. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1109/MAHSS.2004.1392188.
Melendez, M., Milbrandt, A., 2006a. Geographically based Hydrogen Consumer
Demand and Infrastructure Analysis. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
NREL/TP-540-40373.
Melendez, M., Milbrandt, A., 2006b. Transitioning to a Hydrogen Future: Learning
from the Alternative Fuels Experience. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
NREL/TP-540-39423.
Melendez, M., Theis, K., Johnson, C., 2007. Lessons Learned from the Alternative
Fuels Experience and How they Apply to the Development of a Hydrogen-fueled
Transportation System. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-560-
40753.
Nicholas, M.A., Handy, S.L., Sperling, D., 2004. Using geographic information
systems to evaluate siting and networks of hydrogen stations. Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1880, 126–134.
151
Nicholas, M.A., Ogden, J., 2006. Detailed analysis of urban station siting for
California hydrogen highway network. Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board 1983 (1), 121–128.
ReVelle, C.S., Swain, R.W., 1970. Central facilities location. Geographical Analysis 2
(1), 30–42.
Upchurch, C., Kuby, M., 2010. Comparing the p-median and flow-refueling models
for locating alternative-fuel stations. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (6),
750–758.
Upchurch, C., Kuby, M., Lim, S., 2009. A model for location of capacitated
alternative-fuel stations. Geographical Analysis 41 (1), 85–106.
Wang, Y.-W., Lin, C.-C., 2009. Locating road–vehicle refueling stations.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 45 (5),
821–829.
Wang, Y.-W., Wang, C.-R., 2010. Locating passenger vehicle refueling stations.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 46 (5),
791–801.
Zeng, W., Castillo, I., Hodgson, M., 2010. A generalized model for locating facilities
on a network with flow-based demand. Networks and Spatial Economics 10 (4),
579–611.