Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

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

Electric vehicle charging station locations: Elastic demand, station

congestion, and network equilibrium
Yantao Huang, Kara M. Kockelman
⁎

Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, The University of Texas at Austin, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Battery-only electric vehicles (BEVs) generally offer better air quality through lowered emissions,
Electric vehicle charging stations along with energy savings and security. The issue of long-duration battery charging makes
Battery electric vehicles charging-station placement and design key for BEV adoption rates. This work uses genetic al-
Genetic algorithm gorithms to identify profit-maximizing station placement and design details, with applications
Elastic demand
that reflect the costs of installing, operating, and maintaining service equipment, including land
Network equilibrium
acquisition. Fast electric vehicle charging stations (EVCSs) are placed across a congested city's
network subject to stochastic demand for charging under a user-equilibrium traffic assignment.
BEV users’ station choices consider endogenously determined travel times and on-site charging
queues. The model allows for congested-travel and congested-station feedback into travelers’
route choices under elastic demand and BEV owners’ station choices, as well as charging price
elasticity for BEV charging users.
Boston-network results suggest that EVCSs should locate mostly along major highways, which
may be a common finding for other metro settings. If 10% of current EV owners seek to charge en
route, a user fee of $6 for a 30-min charging session is not enough for station profitability under a
5-year time horizon in this region. However, $10 per BEV charging delivers a 5-year profit of
$0.82 million, and 11 cords across 3 stations are enough to accommodate a near-term charging
demand in this Boston-area application. Shorter charging sessions, higher fees, and/or allowing
for more cords per site also increase profits generally, everything else constant. Power-grid and
station upgrades should keep pace with demand, to maximize profits over time, and avoid on-site
congestion.

1. Introduction

Plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) popularity is rising, thanks to environmental and energy benefits, falling battery and vehicle prices
(Nykvist and Nilsson, 2015), and expanding consumer experience and education. PEVs generally offer better air quality through
lowered tailpipe emissions, along with energy savings and security, and lowered carbon footprints. There are two types of PEVs:
battery electric vehicles (BEV), which rely 100 percent on rechargeable batteries and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), which
have both an electric motor and a gasoline engine (California Plug-In Electric Vehicle Collaborative, 2013). PHEVs in all-electric
mode and BEVs have zero tailpipe emissions on road, compared with internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) which produce
direct emissions (U.S. Department of Energya, 2019). PEVs are not only less expensive to operate and maintain than conventional
ICEVs (Simpson, 2006; Noori et al., 2015; Sierzchula et al., 2014; Reiter and Kockelman, 2017), but also facing a lower risk of fire and

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yantao.h@utexas.edu (Y. Huang), kkockelm@mail.utexas.edu (K.M. Kockelman).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.008
Received 30 April 2019; Received in revised form 30 October 2019; Accepted 12 November 2019
1361-9209/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Yantao Huang and Kara M. Kockelman, Transportation Research Part D,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.008
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

explosion (McDonald, 2016).

However, long-duration battery charging (vs. gasoline refueling time) makes charging-station placement and design key for many
consumers’ BEV adoption decisions (He et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2013; Smith and Castellano, 2015). Thanks to Level 3 or direct-
current fast chargers (DCFCs) in thousands of high-traffic commercial locations and along major freeways, many U.S., Chinese,
European, and travelers from other countries can now deliver significant charge to their PEVs in 30 min or less. Queues are arising at
many stations, while PEV adoption and use rates are rising (Voelcker, 2013; Edelstein, 2016; Campbell, 2018). In addition, many
travelers do not have decent access to charging stations at their homes (e.g., those in apartment buildings) or at their workplaces
(EverCharge, 2017). Axsen and Kurani (2012) estimated that half of U.S. households buying an EV have a Level 1 electrical outlet at
home, and just under one-third of such households in San Diego County have access to Level 2 charging at their residence. Efforts are
been made to tackle the challenges of charging at multi-unit dwellings (California Plug-In Electric Vehicle Collaborative, 2013;
Peterson, 2011). In any case, more stations are needed to support all these types of demand, and thereby encouraging greater
adoption and use of PEVs. A salient question is where they should be placed.

2. Literature review

Many economic decisions relate to location choices, of firms and firehouses, schools and transshipment warehouses, with the goal
of serving demands efficiently while minimizing system costs or maximizing owner profits. Intensive studies of facility location
started in the 17th Century when the Fermat-Weber Problem was introduced (Weber, 1909). Rather recently, researchers have
investigated the electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) location choices.
Most research on EVCS placement is based on the optimization model of facility location problem. Used approaches vary in
objective functions, decision types, station types, application sizes, and candidate locations. In terms of the objective function,
maximizing covered demand (He et al., 2019; Frade et al., 2011; Capar et al., 2013; Chung and Kwon, 2015) and minimizing total
cost or total travel time (Wang and Wang, 2010; Shahraki et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2014; Huang et al., 2016) are relatively common.
This work is considered among the type of minimizing total cost as the objective of the main facility location choice problem.
Candidate locations are normally allowed to be at an intersection in the network (He et al., 2019; Capar et al., 2013; Lee et al.,
2014; Ghamami et al., 2016) or special existing infrastructure, like parking lots and gas stations (Chen et al., 2013; Wang and Wang,
2010; Shahraki et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2016). Chen et al. (2013) formulated a mixed integer programming problem for optimal
EVCS location assignments across the Seattle region, minimizing PEV users’ station access costs while penalizing unmet demand.
Current BEV-charging demands were estimated via regression equations – as a function of zone accessibility, local jobs and popu-
lation densities, trip attributes, and other variables available in most regions and travel surveys. He et al. (2019) coded a refueling-
location model to identify optimal sites for EVCSs, to maximize the share of completed range-constrained long-distance highway
travel across the U.S. They estimated that 93% and 99% of the nation’s long-distance ground-based passenger-vehicle trips can be
completed with EV ranges of 200 and 300 miles, respectively, using just 100 thoughtfully located EVCSs.
Many other methods are also used, including simulations and heuristics (Dong et al., 2014; Kontou et al., 2019; Xie at al., 2018),
and hybrid approaches (Xi et al., 2013). For example, Xie et al. (2018) used a genetic algorithm to investigate long-term strategic
planning of inter-city fast-charging infrastructure for BEVs, showing that investment in inter-city charging infrastructure is vital to
alleviate the range anxiety. Dong et al. (2014) also used a genetic algorithm to identify the sitting of the public charging stations,
recognizing the GPS-based vehicle data. Kontou et al. (2019) also used GPS data to estimate relationships between charging infra-
structure coverage and charging opportunity. Xi et al. (2013) used a simulation-optimization model to show that a mix of Level 1 and
Level 2 chargers is preferable to Level 2 chargers only. Liu (2012) and Huang et al. (2016) investigated the combination of slowing
charging and fast charging.
Some papers modeled detailed EVCS placement considering even queueing models at EVCS, within their facility-location fra-
meworks. Jung et al. (2014) proposed a bi-level simulation–optimization solution method to simulate a fleet of 600 shared taxis in
Seoul, Korea, considering itinerary-interception and queue delay. Hess et al. (2012) presented a model for EVs and their battery
depletion, vehicle mobility, charging stations, and gave a solution for the optimal placement of EVCSs in a smart city. They con-
sidered queueing at EVCSs and simulated EVs through a genetic programming method. However, they usually ignored network
congestion.
Lee et al. (2014) proposed a bi-level model to minimize the total failure cost under user equilibrium to reflect congestion in route
choice with a heuristic algorithm of simulated annealing. An application on Sioux Falls network was presented without considering
installed number of chargers or queueing at stations. Yao et al. (2014) developed a model, to minimize the overall annual cost of
investment and energy losses while maximizing the annual traffic flow captured by fast-charging stations through a user equilibrium-
based traffic assignment model. Although the studies mentioned above concern congestion, neither of them has congestion feedback
on the station choices of the EVCS users or queueing at stations.
This work synthesizes the facility location problem with network congestion feedback and queueing at the fast charging stations
under stochastic station choices, considering elastic demand and charging price elasticity. The traditional genetic algorithm is le-
veraged to solve a bi-level optimization problem, considering the facility location choice problem as the first level and the traffic
assignment as the second level of the problem. Such a detailed and realistic model is seldom seen in current research. Further, this
work provides suggestions on not only station locations but detailed number of the chargers at each station, so to minimize the cost
over a time horizon while ensuring meeting the charging demand during a day. It provides an extension to most of current EVCS
research in these aspects.

2
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

3. Methodology

This section describes the simulation framework used to solve this problem, including background assumptions, key equations
and problem solutions for BEVs’ charging decisions. Assumptions impact travel behaviors (e.g., demand elasticities), EVCS owner
costs (for land/space, equipment, operations and maintenance [O&M]), and EVCS location options. Initial congestion and demand
applications are for an afternoon peak (to reflect all possible revenues). Analysis of more specific times of day will allow for greater
congestion feedbacks but ignore demand that will impact profitability.

3.1. Problem settings

Vehicles are classified into two types in the simulation process: BEVs, which will charge en-route (also referred to as BEV charging
users), and other types of vehicles, which reach their destinations without charging. Most PEVs (including most BEVs) that will not be
charged en route on the analysis day (since most PEV owners charge at work or home).
Congested travel time on all roads is found to meet the user equilibrium such that all used routes between each origin-destination
(OD) pair have the same and minimum travel time, for all OD pairs and for the mentioned two vehicle classes in the network. There
are no dynamic features in the simulation due to the static traffic assignment property, thus an OD trip table reflects all trips that
happened during the simulation framework, considering charging trips to stations, charging trips to destinations leaving from stations
and also non-charging trips directly from origins to destinations.
BEV users will detour to charge en route before arriving at their destinations, but not if the charger is further away from their
origin than their destination is. This “further away” is defined as the detour is three times longer than the shortest path directly from
the origin to the destination (Winters et al., 2010; Bouwman and Moll, 2002). However, those BEV charging users can charge either at
the origin or the destination if both origin and destination are set as EVCSs. In this case, their charging behavior is also considered as
en route charging because public charging facilities are used instead of EVCSs at home or workplace.
BEV owners’ decision of using or selecting stations will depend on detour distances or travel times involved and queuing (or wait
times) at desired fast-charging stations. Travelers are assumed to be informed of congestion along all routes and at each EVCS, thanks
to navigation technologies and charging-station broadcasts of queues. BEV charging users have a higher probability (based on
random utility theory) to favor shortest total travel plus charging time paths (from origin to final destination, recognizing delays to
reach and while waiting at EVCSs, for those who wish to charge en route that day). Of course, network congestion also affects
network demand, for all travelers.
Two different kinds of elasticities are considered. All travelers are permitted to shift to other modes or time of day when con-
gestion increases, in which case the elasticity in travel demand is related to the congestion. In addition to the elasticity in travel
demand, there is a charging price elasticity in BEV charging users. Some of them would not charge due to the high price of the
charging session. Previous research has investigated EV sales price elasticities (e.g., Zhang et al., 2016b) and battery-charging price
(closely related to electricity price) (e.g., Mrkos et al., 2018). Price elasticity analysis is often performed across a region (e.g., Mrkos
et al., 2018; Li et al., 2013) without linking to other implications, like EVCS location decisions. This work introduces charging price
elasticity at the network level within the framework of EVCS location decisions and congestion under user equilibrium. Elasticity of
travel demands due to network congestion has been studied extensively (e.g., Nagurney and Dong, 2002; Zhou et al., 2005), but, to
the authors’ best knowledge, has not yet been combined with EV charging station siting and sizing decisions, while recognizing both
network and charging station congestion. Further, combing these two types of elasticity enables the model to capture routing and
charging behavior of EV users. Queues may be observed at a station. Since static traffic and station assignment algorithms are used
here (assuming stationing demand and supply conditions for network links and station cords), BEV users beyond 80% of any EVCS’s
capacity are assumed to wait some period of time for a charging cord or space to become available. Any EVCS demand level that
exceeds station capacity are not able to charge their vehicles, so such revenues are lost.

3.2. Problem assumptions

Table 1 shows the key assumptions used for the application in Boston, Massachusetts region network, with detailed discussion
followed.

3.2.1. Demand of BEV users charging en-route

Among PEVs, BEVs require charging since BEVs cannot use gasoline. BEV owners may choose to charge en route (rather than at
one’s home or workplace or shopping destination, for example), like when traveling long distances (typically inter-regionally) or
when forgetting to charge overnight (and possibly running out of charge that day). In contrast, PHEV owners may not care to wait to
charge en route (since gasoline can be added quickly to PHEVs, generally with little to no circuity in one’s routing choice). Therefore,
it is assumed that almost all charging demand comes from BEVs. BEV charging users is further assumed to be a fixed share of the total
road users on the network, considering the share of PEVs in the sales market and the share of PEVs that need daily public charging.
The share of BEVs charging users is determined by the PEV share in the U.S. vehicle market multiplied by the share of PEVs charging
at public stations. Literature oriented from the utilization of the charging stations provides evidence in the share of BEVs charging at
public stations (Hardman et al., 2018; Wood et al., 2017), since not every BEV wants to charge while traveling intra-regionally.
PEV market share in the U.S. was about 1.6% in March 2018 (EVAdoption, 2018). And perhaps 5% to 12% of all PEV users will
stop for charging within a city network (Hardman et al., 2018; Wood et al., 2017). Assuming that the Boston-area aligns well with

3
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 1
Key assumptions.
Assumption Sources

Charging Demand
PEV market share in the U.S. 1.6% EVAdoption (2018)
BEV share using public charging 10% Hardman et al. (2018) and
Wood et al. (2017)
% BEVs charging en-route among total demand 0.15% EVAdoption (2018), Hardman et al. (2018) and Wood et al.
(2017)
Charging Facility Features
Level of charge Level 3/DCFC Nicholas and Hall (2018)
Average charging time/session 30 min Nicholas and Hall (2018)
Miles of range charged/session 90 miles UCS (2018)
Speed of charge (Power) 50 kW Smith and Castellano (2015)
Energy/charging session 25kWh Smith and Castellano (2015) and
UCS (2018)
Cost
Land acquisition Downtown First spot $500,000 Acitelli (2018) and Bilis (2018)
Additional spot $100,000
Suburb First spot $300,000
Additional spot $50,000
Cord installation $20,000/station Idaho National Laboratory (2015) and Smith and Castellano
Station maintenance, station signage, equipment upgrades, advertising $10,000/station/year (2015)
Electricity $0.15 per kWh Pacific Gas and Electric Company (2018), Fitzgerald and
($0.125/min) Nelder (2017) and U.S. Energy Information Administration
(2019)
Revenue
Fare $10/session Berman (2018)
Transaction costs 3% Nietaus (2013)

public charging utilization (10%), BEVs that will charge en-route is thus assumed to be about 0.15% of all vehicles. This is to say,
given a city’s OD trip table, the trip matrix of BEV charging users is 0.15% of that OD trip table without considering the charging
behavior or any elasticity.

3.2.2. Charging facility features

Charging station costs vary by cords provided and power rates delivered. Fast charging (Level 3) stations offer a power of 50 kW
or more, and thus can deliver 70 to 100 miles of passenger-car BEV range in 30 min or less (Nicholas and Hall, 2018). In the U.S.,
30 min is the average charging duration at public stations (Nicholas and Hall, 2018). Such durations may rise as Americans and
others rely more and more on long-range BEVs for long-distance trip-making (Perrine and Kockelman, 2016). This paper assumes that
EVCS chargers deliver power at 50 kW or 90 miles of range within 30 min, which is less than a supercharger but typical of Level 3
chargers (Smith and Castellano, 2015; UCS, 2018).

3.2.3. Cost of land acquisition and charging facility and electricity

Different station sites carry different land costs, and some carry different energy costs (by the rate of power delivery and high-
voltage power-grid-access constraints). Central Boston area (hosting 20 of the network’s 74 nodes) is assumed to cost the most, with
$500,000 to acquire one charging spot with driveway, and then $100,000 for each added spot. One parking spot is assumed to have
up to five cords. Outside the central area, each station costs $300,000 (for the first slot) plus $50,000 for any additional parking spots,
based on the market price of parking spaces in Boston area (Acitelli, 2018; Bilis, 2018).
Smith and Castellano (2015) estimated Level 3 EVCSs to cost $10,000 to $40,000 per charger and $2,300 to $6,000 for parts and
labor in their installation. Blink DC fast chargers were installed at an average price of $22,626, and the lowest registered cost was
$8,500 across 22 regions in the U.S. (Idaho National Laboratory, 2015). Therefore, cord installation requires labor, materials, permits
and taxes, and is assumed to cost $20,000 upfront, per site (5 cords at maximum as desired). Station maintenance, station signage,
equipment upgrades, and advertising are assumed to be $10,000 per station per year (Smith and Castellano, 2015).

3.2.4. Electricity cost and charging fees

Peak charging times at home are at night, while public station demand peaks during the day (Tuttle and Baldick, 2012; Schey
et al., 2012; Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2018). The U.S. average power price for residences is just $0.12/kWh (U.S. Energy
Information Administration, 2019), but this is not for high power pulled from the grid. Based on the electric power statistics from U.S.
Energy Information Administration (2019), Massachusetts has a commercial utility rate of $0.17/kWh and industrial utility rate of
$0.15/kWh. To avoid excessive power demand in any one location during the PM peak time in the Boston/EMA (Eastern Massa-
chusetts) network, a maximum cord count of 5, with 50 kW each and $0.15 per kWh (or $0.125/min) cost (paid by the station
owner), is assumed at each station.
Station owners can charge customers either by minutes (like Evgo is doing, $0.20/minute charge across many states in the U.S.) or

4
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

per visit (like Blink is doing, at $7 to $10 per session, and AeroVironment is doing, at $7.50 per session) (Berman, 2018). Recognizing
that future demands and evolving technologies will allow faster charging but more grid burdens, this paper assumes a baseline that
people charge for 30 min, to achieve 90 miles of range (on average), and each charging session costs $10, with credit card transaction
costs as 3% of the fee (Nietaus, 2013).

3.3. Problem formulation

Using the above assumptions and ideas, the bi-level profit-maximization problem for charging station provision across a town,
city or region network can be stated as follows:

max (p ( pe ) c rv fv yv )
fm T Nv f vc yv
y
(r , v) Z2 v V v V (1)

s. t . yv = {0, 1} v Z (2)

c rv = ( , d , p , yv ) (r , v ) Z2 (3)

r V
c rv
Nv = min ,M v Z
S (4)
rs
xij d
where d rs = argmin tij (x ) dx D 1 ( )d (r , v ) Z2
0 0
x , h, d
( i, j ) A (r , s ) Z2 (5)

s. t . xij = h ij (i , j ) A
(6)

h = d rs (r , s ) Z2
(7)

h 0 (8)

drs 0 (r , s ) Z2 (9)

3.3.1. Main formulation

A network is denoted as G = (Z, A), where Z is the set of nodes (74 nodes in this case study) and A is the set of directed links in the
road network. (r, s) represents an OD pair from origin to destination, while (r, v) represent an OD pair from origin to charging station
for BEV charging users, since charging stations are placed on nodes.
Optimization problem equations (1)–(4) are the facility location portion (first level) of this EVCS problem. In this formulation, p is
the price or fee per session paid by BEV charging users at a station. pe is the price of electricity per vehicle charged ($0.125/
min × 30 min/vehicle charge = $3.75/vehicle) but paid by the station owner. ε = 97% is the share of revenues that owners keep
(after credit card use fees). T is the analysis time horizon of the investment of building EVCS (e.g., 5 years in the initial Boston
application). f vc is the fixed price of cord (and its installation) at station v. Fv is the land or site fees per year at station v (much like a
mortgage payment). Fm is annual station maintenance cost. c rv is the supply of BEVs charging users from node r to node v (i.e.,
vehicles that seek to charge their batteries after considering a path’s EVCS total travel time situation). S is the total vehicle flow a cord
can serve (based on charging speed) during the time of day (e.g. two BEVs can be served in one hour with 30 min per charging
session); and Nv is the number of cords ultimately provided at station v. drs denotes the number of vehicles whose trip starts at r and
end at s, while d is the matrix form of drs . M is the maximum number of cords that can be built at a station, considering constraints of
power-delivery or parking-space. λ is the share of BEVs that will charge en route among all travelers.
The profit objective function of the EVCS owners, shown as (1), represents the sum of revenues collected from BEV owners that
decide to stop and charge their vehicles, minus all other costs (for site rental, equipment provision, operations, and maintenance).
The maximum profit is found by deciding station locations – Eq. (2) and the number of cords in each station – Eq. (4), through
identified vehicle flow into charging stations – Eq. (3).
In Eq. (2), yv is 1 when node v is used/chosen for an EVCS, and 0 otherwise. Eq. (3) computes supply of BEVs charging users from
node r to node v (stations), through a function , which takes λ, d, p, yv as inputs and compute an equilibrium of charging vehicles’
OD table through procedures of station choice under price elasticity, traffic assignment with elastic demand, and update of travel
demand table. Cord counts are also limited by station sizing (which is assumed fixed here but can be varied in an expanded for-
mulation), and the maximum (due to size or demand) is shown in constraint Eq. (4).
Eqs. (5) through (9) solve the user-equilibrium traffic assignment problem with elastic demand (second-level problem). Here, Π is
the set of all used paths (for all OD pairs) in the network. h is the flow of travelers choosing path π. ij is a binary indicator of
whether link (i, j) is in path . D (·) is the demand function for each OD pair (based on shortest-path travel time). x ij is the vehicle flow
(volume) on link (i, j) , and tij (x ) is the travel time performance function for link (i, j) at flow level x. Traffic assignment solution
delivers link flows and path demands, and thus the final OD matrix under congestion elasticity, which is used as inputs to obtain the
overall problem’s primary objective function: BEVs that stop to charge en route impact the objective function (1) – for maximizing

5
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

profits.

3.3.2. Elastic demand

Travelers are permitted to shift to other modes (or destinations or curtail trip-making altogether) when congestion increases.
Thus, demand between each OD pair is elastic, as a functionD (·) of that OD pair’s shortest-path travel time and travel distance:
d = D (D 0 , t , l )

where d is the matrix form of drs , which denotes the final trip counts from r to s; D 0 is the given original OD table without congestion
elasticity; t is the matrix form of trs , which is the shortest path travel time from origin r to destination s; and l is the matrix form of lrs ,
which is the shortest-path distance between r and s.
Specifically, an exponential demand function is used here (Yang, 1997), as follows:

drs = Drs0 × exp( ( t

rs trs + l
rs lrs )) (r , s ) Z2

where rsl is vehicle operating cost per mile ($0.40/mile), and rst = rsl × VOTT is the cost of shortest-path travel time, with the
value of travel time (VOTT) assumed to be $12/hour for all BEV users in the base case (Belenky, 2011). A value of α = −0.1 is used
here to reflect the elastic demand with respect to travel time and distance (Yang, 1997); a more accurate calibration of this α value
can deliver more realistic results.

3.3.3. Equilibrium of charging vehicles’ OD table

As noted above, the function is used to obtain the final (equilibrated) charging demand matrix (c rv , or c in the matrix form) from
the OD matrix of all travelers (d). Note that the charging demand matrix c only represents the charging trip table that BEVs travel
from origin to the stations, while the table of trips from stations to destinations is represented as c vs , with a matrix form of c’. This
function involves an equilibrium between three procedures, as shown in Fig. 1.
The process details are as follows:
①: Obtain charging demand under price elasticity. This procedure consists of two steps which transfer the OD matrix of all
travelers (d) into three matrices in one iteration: c (trip table representing charging trips from origins to stations), c’ (trip table
representing charging trips from stations to destinations) and d# (trip table representing non-charging trips).
The first step is to obtain a demand matrix, denoted as c#, a two-dimensional matrix that indicates the origins and destinations of
the BEV charging users. c# does not provide the information about which charging station BEV charging users will stop, but only the
origins and destinations. Price elasticity function P(·) is used to obtain c# from d (the trip table that considers all types of travelers):
c# = P ( , , d , p) , where δ is the price elasticity, and prior studies suggest that −0.08 is a reasonable estimate for this parameter
(Zhang et al., 2016; Faruqui et al., 2011). Using an exponential elasticity function, the detailed demand-price relationship can be
expressed as:
c#rs = d rs exp( (p 4)) (r , s ) Z2

It is assumed that a $4 charging session fee does not really impact demand, while prices above $4 per session will alter the
decision of a few BEV owners such that they will not charge en route. After c# is obtained, the remaining trips (i.e., those that do not
charge en route) are denoted as trip table d# = d c# .
The second step is to transfer c# into two matrices, namely c (trip table from origins to stations) and c’ (trip table from stations to
destinations), by deciding the stations that BEVs (who will charge en route) will stop to charge, given the origins and destinations.
This is achieved by using a station choice algorithm, which will be introduced in the next section.
②: Assemble travel demand matrix and assign traffic with elastic demand. The travel demand matrix for assignment is the sum of
non-charging vehicles (d#), charging trip to stations (c) and to destinations (c′). Traffic assignment can get the new link travel time
and travel distance. This will alter the elasticity in travel demand and thus a new OD matrix of all travelers (d*) can be obtained.
③: Update travel demand matrix. The gap between d and d* is checked and the new d to compute new charging flow is updated. If
there is a small gap between d and d* (e.g. gap = 0.1), c is the final (equilibrated) charging demand matrix. Otherwise, a method of

Fig. 1. Equilibrium of Charging Vehicles’ OD Table.

6
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

successive average is used to update d towards an equilibrium:

n-1 1
d: = d+ d
n n

where n is the number of iterations. The equation shows that the new d is replaced by the sum of (n-1)/n times the OD matrix before
assignment and 1/n times the OD matrix after assignment. However, due to the overall problem’s computational complexity, only
three iterations of this 3-step process are used here, while respecting the 48-hour super-computer time constraint on all calculations.

3.4. EVCS solution

This section provides the solution methods to the NP-hard problem (Bovet and Crescenzi, 1994) presented in this paper. The
overall problem is solved using a genetic algorithm (GA) approach, and the algorithm B (Dial, 1971) is used to solve the traffic
assignment portion. A queueing-averse station-choice algorithm is also introduced to handle the EVCS choice of BEV charging users.

3.5. Genetic algorithm

A GA is a metaheuristic for (approximately) solving complex optimization problems, inspired by the process of natural selection
(Mitchell, 1998). GAs rely on bio-inspired operators, including mutation, crossover, and selection across decision variables’ values.
Here, the GA population is a combination of the network’s node values (0′s and 1′s), indicating which nodes will be selected to host
EVCSs. One update of the population is to select the best solutions (those delivering higher profit levels) from earlier generations, and
randomly mutating some values from 0 to 1 or from 1 to 0, or crossing over/exchanging a section of one set of binary values with
another, in current-solution vectors. The fitness function of this GA algorithm is the objective function of the optimization problem
(Eq. (1)). Each iteration’s suggestion of EVCS locations results in an updated traffic assignment (reflecting user equilibrium with
elastic demand) and an updated cord count recommendation (to maximize profits, given current station locations). The stopping
criterion used here is 120 iterations, due to the significant computational load (about 20 min per iteration), and Fig. 2 illustrates the
solution process. The design of the stations, as well as their locations, are determined by the best solution among these 120 iterations.
Each scenario takes about 48 h using a Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) supercomputer.
Here, GA parameters are tested and adjusted to provide a better convergence within a reasonable computation time based on the
problem’s size or scale (Rylander, 2002; Roeva et al., 2013): The GA population consists of 8 EVCS assignment sets, and thus each GA
iteration relies on 8 different traffic assignment solutions. The best solution for each iteration is always kept and used for further
mutations. The selection rate assumption used is 0.5, implying that 4 solutions are used to generate 4 solutions after crossover. All
binary elements of these 8 solutions have a probability of 0.05 to mutate from 0 to 1 or from 1 to 0.

3.6. Traffic assignment algorithm

Static traffic assignment is a traditional network problem (Sheffi, 1985). It seeks a user equilibrium so that minimum travel time
paths are achieved for travelers between all OD pairs (Wardrop, 1952). Dial’s (1971) bush-based algorithm B is used here to assign
both BEV charging users and those not seeking to charge simultaneously. The relative gap used here, as the stop criteria for con-
vergence, is set to 0.0001 (Sheffi, 1985). Smaller values will enable clearer convergence, but computing demands on supercomputers
will limit this choice.

Fig. 2. Genetic Algorithm Process Used.

7
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

3.7. Station choice algorithm

Equilibrium network flows can shift a fair bit, at least for BEV charging users, due to different EVCS siting decisions. Those who
stop to charge en route create two sub-trip tables, from origin to EVCS and from EVCS to final destination. Station choice happens for
those trips who share the same OD pair (r, s) . Station choice function is denoted as:
c = S ( c# , t , w )
Specifically, EVCS choice for station v' among all potential station Z is determined using a logit choice model:
exp(trv + t v s + × wv )
c rv = c v s = c#rs × (r , s ) Z 2, v Z
v
exp(trv + tvs + × wv )

where c rv is the demand of BEV charging users who travel from origin r to station v’ to charge for a trip from origin r to destination s,
which equals to the demand c v s from station v’ to destination s; and trv and t v s are the congested travel time from origin r to station v’
and from station v’ to destination s, respectively. Therefore, an EVCS choice depends on the detour time trv' + tv's and the waiting time
wv (w as the vector form) at the station v. is set as 0.75, recognizing that when people charge their vehicle, they could spend time in
a coffee nearby, or making phone calls. Therefore, they perceive a lower value of time when waiting than when driving.
The previous function gives the desired charging flow for a BEV charging trip with origin r and destination s. Most people are
queueing-averse, since they do not want to waste time waiting in line, so they may prefer a relatively far but uncongested station to
charge at. Assuming that no BEV driver will travel more than three times the shortest path to reach his/her destination directly
(Winters et al., 2010; Bouwman and Moll, 2002), the following algorithm conducted a queueing-averse charging station choice to
redistribute station choices using a logit choice model.
The algorithm first assumes uncongested stations for assignment of charging flows to all stations (so that no station is more than
80% occupied during the 3-hour PM peak period, as discussed earlier). If any station cannot readily accommodate its apparent
demand (up to 80% of its cord capacity), that station’s excess demand is logit-assigned to uncongested stations (assuming the max-
distance is not exceeded). If all stations can ultimately accommodate all demands under the 80% target, no queueing occurs. If
demand exceeds 80% of all stations’ capacity, then BEV flows are assigned with delay penalties at each charging station.
The pseudo-code of this queueing-averse station choice algorithm is provided below, with Brs (k ) denoting unassigned charging
flow at station k, B(k) denoting the matrix form of Brs (k ) , and B serving as the matrix form of B(k). Ars (k ) denotes charging flow
assigned to station k, with A(k) as its matrix form and A as the matrix form of A(k). R (k ) as the remaining capacity for vehicles to
charge without queueing at station k, with R as its vector form.

Queueing-averse Charing Station Choice Algorithm (Pseudocode)

Inputs: c#: origins and destinations of the BEVs who will charge en route
t: travel time between each OD pair
K: station list
R: remaining capacity at stations

Step 1: Initialize: B 0, A 0, w 0
Step 2: Calculate unassigned charging flow B S(c#, t , w)
Step 3: for k in K
Calculate the desired charging flow at station k: r ,s Brs (k )
if r , s B (k ) > R(k)
rs

Update assigned flow: Ars (k ) Ars (k ) + Brs (k )/ r ,s Brs (k ) × R(k)

Update unassigned flow: Brs (k ) Brs (k ) Brs (k )/ r ,s Brs (k ) × R(k)
Remove k from K
else
Assign all flow to the station: Ars (k ) Ars (k ) + Brs (k )
Update unassigned flow: Brs (k ) 0
Calculate the remaining capacity at station k: R(k) R(k) r,s Brs (k)
Step 4: if R(k) = 0 k K
go to step 7
Step 5: if K is not empty
Update unassigned flow using current station list: B S( k B (k), t, w)
go to step 3else Update w go to step 6
Step 6: Added congested charging flow to assigned flow: A A + S( k B (k), t , w)
Step 7: Reformat the flow into the matrix form: c, c’ A
Update w

8
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 3. Boston’s EMA-coded Network. Note: Central Boston is comprised of nodes 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 37, 38, 39,
40, & 41. External Zones are 1, 2, 4, 5, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, & 70.

4. Scenario test

4.1. Data input

The Boston region’s EMA travel demand and network data were developed by Zhang et al. (2016a), with 74 nodes and 258
directional links. Travel demand data is obtained from the website developed by Transportation Networks for Research Core Team
(2019). Fig. 3(a), which is obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau (2015), is the network used to replicate the map from Zhang et al.
(2016a). Fig. 3(b) overlays the network with the actual Boston map to provide a clear view of the nodes’ and links’ locations. Since
the trip table from Zhang et al. (2016a) is from year 2012, trip counts were increased by 3.5% to match the region’s population
increase (Umass Donahue Institute, 2018). Thus, the OD matrix on this coarse network reflects 67,871 vehicle-trips during Boston’s 3-
hour PM peak period. Demand between external zones has also been expanded three times to guess long-distance travelers’ higher
demand for battery charging. The Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) link-performance function is used here (Transportation Research
Board, 2000): t = t 0 1 + ()
v
c
, where v is each link’s traffic volume (or demand for that link), c is link capacity, t 0 is the link’s free-
flow travel time, and parameters α and β are assumed to equal 0.84 and 5.5, respectively, to reflect true capacity (rather than the level
of service C, as in the original BPR formula). After loading the trips onto the network to achieve user equilibrium without considering
BEV charging en route, 8 links show v/c ratios over 1.0 (i.e., demand exceeding capacity), for 4,253 of the vehicle-trips.
Fast charging stations can be located at any of the network’s nodes (74 in this initial application), which serve as origins and
destinations of the region’s the 67,871 vehicle-trips. Demand used in this paper is for Boston’s 3-hour PM peak period, but station-
owner revenues are estimated for the whole year. Based on demand profiles from prior research (FHWA, 2018), peak time demand
(AM peak + PM peak) is about 30% of the daily travel demand. Considering charging happens mostly during peak time or mid-day
instead of night when people charge at home, the charging demand at PM peak is assumed to be 25% of the day’s total charging
demand.

4.2. Scenarios analyzed

Different cost and behavioral settings will generally deliver different EVCS siting and sizing decisions. Table 2 describes as-
sumptions for scenarios tested here, with base-case values shown in the first column. Such variations allow one to examine how BEV

Table 2
Scenario design settings.
Base Case Range of Values used in Scenarios

Time horizon (years) 5 yrs [3, 8]

Max cord # per station 5 cords [1, 8]
Charging time (minutes) 30 min [10, 40]
Fee per charge ($) $10 [4, 18]
BEV charging users as % of total demand 0.15% [0.05%, 30%]
VOTT ($/hr) $12/h [4, 24]

9
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 4. Genetic Algorithm Fitness Function Value.

owners’ demand levels, EVCS owners’ costs, VOTT, fee choices, cord count constraints, and time horizons should impact decision-
making, and to ascertain whether there is some meaningful stability or robustness in profit-maximizing decisions. Two more sce-
narios are further invested by considering the increasing EV adoption rate and the increasing time horizon. In the BEV penetration
analysis, BEV charging users are assumed to have a range from 0.05% to 30% of the total demand. It is possible to see 30% of the total
demand in need of charging due to increasing sales of EVs and the increasing apartment housing. It is hard to access charging
facilities in apartment housing, which is now occupying one-fourth of the housing in many metropolitan areas (National Multifamily
Housing Council, 2019).

4.3. EVCS siting and design results

Base case results suggest the use of 11 cords total across just 3 stations (at nodes 7, 31 and 48 in the 74-node, 258-link network),
assuming 5 cords max per station and an average 30-min charging time, for the 0.15% of all travelers that are BEV users wishing to
charge their vehicles in this 3-hour PM peak period each day. The overall (5-year) cost for the station-system owner is estimated to be
$3.11 million - versus $3.93 million in revenues, suggesting a profit margin (26.6%) over this short-term (5-year) low-price ($10/
charge) scenario (assuming travelers value time at $12/hour) with 20.6% internal rate of return (IRR). The GA-selected 3 stations are
placed at intersections of 4 major interstate highways: IH90, IH93, IH95, and IH495. There are 43 charging events during the
simulated 3-hour afternoon peak. Results from the National Renewable Energy Lab (Wood et al., 2017) suggest 1.5 cords are needed
for every 1000 PEVs in U.S. cities, with 3.9 cords per station, versus 2.2 cords per 1000 PEVs with 1.3 cords per station in U.S. town
settings. The state of Massachusetts had just 6300 PEVs in 2016 (Lowell et al., 2016), mostly in the Boston region, suggesting a need
for about 9.5 to 13.9 cords total (depending on how the population is spread across cities versus towns). Thus, this paper’s base case
result of 11 cords distributed across three stations appears rather reasonable.”
Fig. 4 shows the fitness function of the genetic algorithm, with profits rising from $0.35 million to $0.82 million over 120
iterations. A better solution may emerge with many more iterations, but this was the best one could do given the supercomputer’s 48-
hr computing-time restrictions.
Taking the variations in charging time and price as examples, Fig. 5 shows the distribution of stations and cords across the
network. Due to a higher land purchase price, there are no stations within the central Boston area, which is the area surrounded by
the Yankee Division Hwy (links connecting nodes 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 27, 26, 28, 29, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41). The spatial
distribution of stations and cords varies based on charging duration assumptions, but most stations are distributed along IH495 and
IH195 and at intersections of major highways, like IH90, IH93, and IH95. With a lower charging duration, there are more stations but
fewer cords across the network (less than two cords sitting at nodes 3, 42, 48, 52, 54 and 69). This is because the demand can be well
served without delay, and revenues allow more stations to be built. In contrast, longer charging durations mean that fewer station
users can be served, so the stations are limited to two locations (nodes 3 and 30) with 5 cords each. The distribution patterns are
similar in the case of charging fee variations, in terms of avoiding high land purchase price in the central area and at highway
intersections. A low charging fee leads to more cords but fewer stations across the city, and vice versa.
Fig. 6 provides experimental results of the sensitivity tests. As shown in Fig. 6(a), profits and cord counts are quite stable as VOTTs
rise. There are no queues across the various VOTT scenarios (Fig. 6(a)), so queue lengths show as zeroes there. Fig. 6(b) shows the
results for flexible prices or fees that can be charged per charging session, with higher fees delivering higher profits. When the
charging fee is just $4 or $6, the profit-maximizing result suggests no stations to be built. In this case, there is no way for station
providers to profit because revenues are too low to cover costs over 5 years. Prices of $8 or more per session can provide profitability,
with queueing at $8 per charge at two stations with the maximum 5 cords. When charging fees rise to $18 per session, only 2 stations
and 6 cords in total are required without generating any queues, since few BEV owners will choose to use public charging facilities,

10
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 5. Charging Station and Cords Spatial Distribution.

except in special situations (like during a long trip through Boston). Even with fewer people to charge, the high charging price still
provides high profits, as seen in Fig. 6(b)’s very high (58%) internal rate of return (IRR). This work assumes a fixed cost per charge,
while the real world will probably offer more flexible pricing options. Demand charges are a common way to moderate electricity use,
as used in Eastern Massachusetts. Such fees can be reflected in station owner operating costs and possibly passed on to station users,
when many users are charging at a single station. Such policies will impact demand and complicate problem solution, so this paper
emphasizes elastic demand with respect to travel and wait times, while keeping charging fees fixed
Fig. 6(c) plots numeric results when charging times range from 10 min to 40 min, and corresponds to Fig. 5(a), with more cords,
more queues, and fewer profits and stations associated with longer charging times, assuming price charged and other assumptions are
held constant. Assuming a fixed duration charge time and price is not very realistic, but helps resolve this NP-hard problem in
reasonable computing time. Also, while station users are assumed to be queueing-averse, some travelers may prefer to wait at a
nearby charging station rather than traveling a longer distance to avoid charging queues. Reflecting real choices and charging needs
requires more detailed data, and may vary by trip type, day of week, and much more.
Fig. 6(d) shows how cord-count constraints (or, similarly, power-delivery and/or parking-space constraints) can affect results. If
power prices do not rise, more powerful grid locations will deliver more profit, in general, thanks to larger station-size possibilities -
which then allows fewer stations to be built to accommodate the charging demand. Since 5 cords (per station, maximum) appear
sufficient to meet Boston’s near term, expected charging demand, profits then remain relatively stable with more allowed cords. In
this Boston area application, 11 cords are estimated to be enough to accommodate the assumed near-term charging demand (through

11
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Fig. 6. Scenario Results.

12
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Table 3
Added Scenarios for Higher % BEV Users Over Time.
BEV charging users as % of total demand 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Time horizon (year) 5 6 7 8 9 10

Total profit ($ in million) 89.9 149.3 222.2 269.2 301.2 335.6
Queue (users/PM peak) 0 0 0 355 573 2085
Total number of cords 535 741 1004 1076 1074 1094
Total number of stations 46 53 71 73 72 73
Internal rate of return 22.1% 24.4% 23.3% 26.1% 30.8% 34.2%
EV energy consumption (thousand kWh) 44.7 84.0 110.8 125.2 142.3 178.5
Non-EV energy consumption (thousand kWh equivalent) 1229.4 1011.2 829.6 690.6 536.2 347.7

2024, based on a 5-year investment horizon). Over time, experts hope that EV use and station availability will rise, to help lower
greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality in regions that have relatively clean power sources (Schnell et al., 2019).
Fig. 6(e) presents how optimal charging station placement and sizing are impacted by different evaluation time horizons. It is
clear that more profits can be obtained with a longer time horizon, which leads to more years of revenue to offset the first year’s fixed
cost. Higher profits over longer time horizons allow construction of more stations with more cords, but the IRR flattens/reaches a
maximum as time horizon lengthens.
Due to rising familiarity, more makes and models for purchase, falling battery prices (Nykvist and Nilsson, 2015), public con-
sciousness of climate change issues (Brady and O’Mahony, 2011) and other trends, PEV sales and BEV ownership levels are likely to
continue rising around the world. Moreover, shared self-driving or “autonomous” vehicle fleets may be largely electric, giving rise to
greater EVCS demand and station location solution needs (see, e.g., Loeb and Kockelman, 2019). Worldwide increases in PEV sales
have led to more charging infrastructure deployments, with placement decisions being important and non-trivial. Fig. 6(f) examines
the impact of higher BEV penetration rates from 0.05% to 5%. Higher BEV penetration rates indicate more charging demand across
the network. In general, profits increase linearly with the increase of BEV adoption rates. In this case, 57 cords across 18 stations are
profit-maximizing, suggesting that station owners should plan strategically, and be ready for a timely upgrade of the charging
infrastructure deployment to keep the pace of the increasing EV sales.
This trend is also evident in Table 3 values, which show IRR values for higher shares of BEV charging users with longer evaluation
time horizon, while assuming a maximum cord count of 15 per station. This is a general guess of how evaluation time horizon should
be in response to the BEV penetration. An annual increase in EV sales market of 5% is much higher than the current rate of around
1.6% (EVadoption, 2018), but one should also anticipate a higher increasing rate before long (Cooper and Schefter, 2018). Previously
in the base-case scenario, 10% of the PEVs are assumed as BEVs (before price elasticity), but now 50% are assumed to be BEVs, as one
would probably see a very high market share of BEVs in this case of high charging demand. Results show that 15% of the total
demand that needs charging is the maximum charging demand the network can accommodate if cords are limited to 15 at each
station in this network. If 30% of current total demand wishes to charge, queues will explode. Relaxing the maximum number of
cords constraint will permit higher IRRs, but 34.2% is still an impressive value, for the base case fee of $10 per charging session. The
last two lines of the table show the energy consumptions by PEVs and non-PEVs based on the vehicle-miles traveled (VMT), assuming
an average energy consumption of 0.35 kWh/mile (U.S. Department of Energyb, 2019) for PEV. VMT is calculated assuming vehicles
using the shortest path between each OD pair. An average 24.9 mpg is used for conventional vehicles, assuming 33.70 kWh as 100%
of the energy of one gallon of gasoline (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2019; U.S. Department of Energyc, 2019). Results
show a clear benefit of adopting EVs, since total energy consumption throughout the network reduced largely with more BEV
charging users.
A main limitation of the sensitivity analysis is the lack of time-dependent BEV penetration levels and charging station and cord
deployments within each scenario. In other words, the BEV ownership or penetration share is constant over the years in each
scenario, along with station investments. In reality, adoption levels and deployment of charging stations and cords will probably
increase over time. Such solution options are feasible with much longer run times, but they will exceed the parallel-supercomputing
time constraints observed here (of 48 h across multiple high-computing cores).

5. Conclusions

This work designs, applies, and iteratively solves a complex fast-charging station location-and-sizing problem to maximize EVCS
owner profits across a region for BEV owners who wish to charge en route. The model is the first to allow congested-travel and
congested-station feedback into travelers’ route choices and BEV owners’ station choices, as well as elastic demand for all road users
(BEVs and non-BEVs) and charging price elasticity for BEV charging users. The method’s results deliver specific station locations and
cord-count details, while reflecting fast (Level 3) charging station costs. This Boston network application results suggest that profit-
maximizing EVCS sites are generally located alongside major highways, where demand is heavy – both for local trips and, pre-
sumably, inter-regional trips. When assuming that 10% of the town’s PEV users will seek en-route charging, a 30-minute charging fee
of $6 is not enough to deliver a profit in 5 years time (with power-delivery costs of $0.15/kWh, land purchase costs of $500,000 per
station (first site in downtown area), and O&M costs of $10,000 per station per year). In contrast, $8 or more charging fees deliver
reasonable profits.

13
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

More implications can be seen from the sensitivity analysis. First, VOTT does not have a significant impact on the design of EVCS,
unless one allows demand elasticity or price responsiveness to fall with high VOTTs. Of course, wait times at stations may be offset by
useful on-site activities for charging (or queued) customers, like coffee shops and hair cutting salons, helping station-owner profit.
Profits also rise when operators take a longer-term perspective, assuming a fixed BEV penetration among travelers. BEV ownership is
rising in the U.S. and elsewhere, and higher adoption rates here suggested higher owner profits. Station investors should consider
evolving demand levels, along with competition between operators and shared automated-vehicle (SAV) technologies (SAVs may
charge themselves inductively). Shorter charging sessions, higher fees, and/or allowing for more cords per site also increase profits,
everything else constant.
Such results suggest that station owners need to pay attention to technological advances, including faster charging speeds
(through more powerful chargers and better car batteries), and time-of-use pricing on power, as well as ways to protect the power
grid and keep energy costs (and power-grid emissions) low. Time-of-day-dependent and grid-status-dependent pricing schemes may
bring more opportunities and strategies to optimize station placements and designs. Power-grid and station upgrades should keep
pace with demand, to maximize profits over time, and avoid on-site congestion. But rising fees for popular stations and popular times
of day and days of the week can also be used to manage demand, avoid long queues, and enhance profit – along with BEV adoption
and use.
Improvements to this work may include calibration of the demand-elasticity parameter and wait-time (at charging stations)
disutility, through survey work and actual station use and queuing observations. A much larger network application would also be
helpful, with station counts limited and station location costs much more variable over space and position. However, for larger, more
realistic applications, faster algorithms will key to achieving profit-maximizing user equilibria in reasonable computing times.
Dynamic traffic assignment and queueing models can also be used to improve realism while slowing down the computation.
Considering BEV range limitations is another complexity that could be added to future work in this topic area. This paper focuses on
intra-regional travel (in contrast to He et al.’s (2019) work), and largely assumes that BEVs can avoid en route charging (due to high
charging prices and/or long queues). Real-world situations may care to consider range details and states of charge. The GA-solution
assumptions and parameters used here may also be improved through machine learning techniques. Site-specific variations will also
exist, on power delivery rates and costs, land rental and site maintenance costs, and cord supply costs. And pricing or fees may work
best considering both per minute and per kWh delivery, further complicating the solution process. Finally, not all PEVs can use the
same charging facilities yet - due to cross-manufacturer design incompatibilities. Currently, nearly all BEVs that offer direct current
fast charging capability in the U.S. use one of three standards: CHAdeMO, Combined Charging System, or a Tesla Supercharger.
Experts expect that all three standards will continue coexisting in the U.S. and many other places (McDonald, 2016). Interoperability,
for maximum demand uptake at EVCS sites, may require more investment expense than assumed here, especially if one wishes to
reduce charging durations to become more competitive with conventional vehicle refueling. Fortunately, technologists are tackling
such issues, and prices continue to fall, making EV futures more and more likely.

Acknowledgement

The authors acknowledge the Texas Advanced Computing Center (TACC) at The University of Texas at Austin for providing super-
computing capabilities towards this complex problem solution, and data storage resources. The authors thank the NSF project (NO.
1444745) for supporting our research under a Sustainability Research Network (SRN) project titled “Integrated Urban Infrastructure
Solutions for Environmentally Sustainable, Healthy, and Livable Cities”. The authors are also grateful to Scott Schauer-West and
Albert Coleman for editing and administrative support.

References

Acitelli, T., 2018. Boston parking spaces for sale range from $30,000 to $350,000 right now. Curbed Boston. Retrieved from: < https://boston.curbed.com/2018/5/
23/17383890/boston-parking-spaces-for-sale-2018 > .
Axsen, J., Kurani, K.S., 2012. Who can recharge a plug-in electric vehicle at home? Transport. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 17 (5), 349–353.
Belenky, P., 2011. Revised departmental guidance on valuation of travel time in economic analysis. US Department of Transportation. Washington, DC. Retrieved
from: < https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/vot_guidance_092811c.pdf > .
Berman, B., 2018. The Ultimate Guide to Electric Car Charging Networks. URL: < http://www.plugincars.com/ultimate-guide-electric-car-charging-networks-126530.
html > .
Bilis, M., 2018. Five Outrageously Expensive Parking Spots You Can Buy Right Now. Boston Magazine. Retrieved from: < https://www.bostonmagazine.com/
property/2018/10/24/boston-parking-spots/ > .
Bouwman, M.E., Moll, H.C., 2002. Environmental analyses of land transportation systems in The Netherlands. Transport. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 7 (5), 331–345.
Bovet, D., Crescenzi, P., 1994. Introduction to the Theory of Complexity. Prentice Hall, London, pp. 69.
Brady, J., O’Mahony, M., 2011. Travel to work in Dublin. The potential impacts of electric vehicles on climate change and urban air quality. Transport. Res. Part D:
Transp. Environ. 16 (2), 188–193.
California Plug-In Electric Vehicle Collaborative, 2013. Plug-in Electric Vehicle Charging lug-in Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Guidelines for infrastructure
Guidelines for Multi-unit Dwellings. URL: < http://www.veloz.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/MUD_Guidelines4web.pdf > .
Campbell, C., 2018. Maryland's utilities propose spending $104 million on statewide electric-vehicle charging network. URL: < https://www.baltimoresun.com/
business/bs-md-electric-vehicles-20180322-story.html > .
Capar, I., Kuby, M., Leon, V.J., Tsai, Y.J., 2013. An arc cover–path-cover formulation and strategic analysis of alternative-fuel station locations. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 227
(1), 142–151.
Chen, T., Kockelman, K., Khan, M., 2013. Locating electric vehicle charging stations: parking-based assignment method for Seattle, Washington. Transp. Res. Rec.
2385, 28–36.
Chung, S.H., Kwon, C., 2015. Multi-period planning for electric car charging station locations: a case of Korean Expressways. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 242 (2), 677–687.
Cooper, A., Schefter, K., 2018. Electric Vehicle Sales Forecast and the Charging Infrastructure Required Through 2030. Retrieved from: < https://www.

14
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

edisonfoundation.net/iei/publications/Documents/IEI_EEI%20EV%20Forecast%20Report_Nov2018.pdf > .
Dial, R.B., 1971. A probabilistic multipath traffic assignment model which obviates path enumeration. Transp. Res. 5 (2), 83–111.
Dong, J., Liu, C., Lin, Z., 2014. Charging infrastructure planning for promoting battery electric vehicles: an activity-based approach using multiday travel data.
Transport. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 38, 44–55.
Edelstein, S., 2016. Tesla Supercharger Congestion Worsens in Peak Travel Periods. URL: < https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1101675_tesla-supercharger-
congestion-worsens-in-peak-travel-periods > .
EVadoption, 2018. Analyzing Key Factors That Will Drive Mass Adoption of Electric Vehicles. URL: < http://evadoption.com/ev-market-share/ > .
EverCharge, 2017. Why Over a Quarter of Americans Can’t Charge an Electric Vehicle at Home. URL: < https://evercharge.net/blog/why-americans-cant-charge-at-
home/ > .
Faruqui, A., Hledik, R.M., Levy, A., Madian, A.L., 2011. Will smart prices induce smart charging of electric vehicles?. Available at SSRN 1915658. Retrieved
from < https://www.smartgrid.gov/files/Will_Smart_Prices_Induce_Smart_Charging_Electric_Vehicles_201107.pdf > .
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2018. Traffic Data Computation Method Pocket Guide. No. FHWA-PL-18-027. Retrieved from: < https://www.fhwa.dot.
gov/policyinformation/pubs/pl18027_traffic_data_pocket_guide.pdf > .
Fitzgerald, G., Nelder, C., 2017. EVgo Fleet and Tariff Analysis Phase 1: California. URL: https://www.rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/eLab_EVgo_Fleet_and_
Tariff_Analysis_2017.pdf.
Frade, I., Ribeiro, A., Gonçalves, G., Antunes, A.P., 2011. Optimal location of charging stations for electric vehicles in a neighborhood in Lisbon, Portugal. Transport.
Res. Rec. 2252 (1), 91–98.
Ghamami, M., Zockaie, A., Nie, Y.M., 2016. A general corridor model for designing plug-in electric vehicle charging infrastructure to support intercity travel.
Transport. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 68, 389–402.
Hardman, S., Jenn, A., Tal, G., Axsen, J., Beard, G., Daina, N., Figenbaum, E., Jakobsson, N., Jochem, P., Kinnear, N., Plötz, P., 2018. A review of consumer preferences
of and interactions with electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Transport. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 62, 508–523.
He, Y., Kockelman, K.M., Perrine, K.A., 2019. Optimal locations of US fast charging stations for long-distance trip completion by battery electric vehicles. J. Cleaner
Prod. 214, 452–461.
Hess, A., Malandrino, F., Reinhardt, M.B., Casetti, C., Hummel, K.A., Barceló-Ordinas, J.M., 2012, December. Optimal deployment of charging stations for electric
vehicular networks. In: Proceedings of the first workshop on Urban networking. ACM, pp. 1–6.
Huang, K., Kanaroglou, P., Zhang, X., 2016. The design of electric vehicle charging network. Transport. Res. Part D: Transp. Environ. 49, 1–17.
Idaho National Laboratory, Plugged In: How Americans Charge Their Electric Vehicles, INL/EXT-15-35584, 2015. URL: < https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/
arra/PluggedInSummaryReport.pdf > .
Jung, J., Chow, J.Y., Jayakrishnan, R., Park, J.Y., 2014. Stochastic dynamic itinerary interception refueling location problem with queue delay for electric taxi
charging stations. Transport. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 40, 123–142.
Kontou, E., Liu, C., Xie, F., Wu, X., Lin, Z., 2019. Understanding the linkage between electric vehicle charging network coverage and charging opportunity using GPS
travel data. Transport. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 98, 1–13.
Lee, Y.G., Kim, H.S., Kho, S.Y., Lee, C., 2014. User equilibrium-based location model of rapid charging stations for electric vehicles with batteries that have different
states of charge. Transp. Res. Rec. 2454, 97–106.
Li, R., Wu, Q., Oren, S.S., 2013. Distribution locational marginal pricing for optimal electric vehicle charging management. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 29 (1), 203–211.
Liu, J., 2012. Electric vehicle charging infrastructure assignment and power grid impacts assessment in Beijing. Energy Policy 51, 544–557.
Lowell, D., Jones, B. and Seamonds, D., 2016. Plug-in Electric Vehicle Cost-Benefit Analysis: Massachusetts. Retrieved from: < https://mjbradley.com/sites/default/
files/MA_PEV_CB_Analysis_FINAL_17nov16.pdf > .
McDonald, Z., 2016. A Simple Guide to DC Fast Charging. URL: < https://www.fleetcarma.com/dc-fast-charging-guide/ > .
McDonald, Z., 2016. How Electric Vehicles Improve Fleet Safety. URL: < https://www.fleetcarma.com/electric-vehicles-fleet-safety/ > .
Loeb, B., Kockelman, K., 2019. Fleet performance and cost evaluation of a shared autonomous electric vehicle (SAEV) fleet: a case study for Austin, Texas. Transp. Res.
Part A 121, 374–385.
Mitchell, M., 1998. An Introduction to Genetic Algorithms. MIT press.
Mrkos, J., Komenda, A., Jakob, M., 2018, July. Revenue Maximization for Electric Vehicle Charging Service Providers Using Sequential Dynamic Pricing.
In: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and
Multiagent Systems, pp. 832–840.
Nagurney, A., Dong, J., 2002. A multiclass, multicriteria traffic network equilibrium model with elastic demand. Transport. Res. Part B: Methodol. 36 (5), 445–469.
National Multifamily Housing Council, 2019. Quick Facts: Resident Demographics U.S. Households: How Many Rent, How Many Own? Retrieved from: < https://
www.nmhc.org/research-insight/quick-facts-figures/quick-facts-resident-demographics/#Characteristics_of_Apartment_Households > .
Nykvist, B., Nilsson, M., 2015. Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles. Nat. Clim. Change 5 (4), 329.
Nicholas, M. and Hall, D., 2018. Lessons Learned on Early Electric Vehicle Fast Charging Deployments. The International Council on Clean Transportation. Retrieved
from < https://www.theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ZEV_fast_charging_white_paper_final.pdf > .
Niehaus, M., 2013. Making “Cents” of Credit Card Processing Fees. Retrieved from < http://instoredoes.com/making-cents-of-credit-card-processing-fees/ > .
Noori, M., Gardner, S., Tatari, O., 2015. Electric vehicle cost, emissions, and water footprint in the United States: development of a regional optimization model.
Energy 89, 610–625.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2018. Electric Vehicle rate plans. Retrieved from: < https://www.pge.com/en_US/business/rate-plans/rate-plans/time-of-use/
time-of-use.page > .
Perrine, K., Kockelman, K. 2016. Anticipating Long-Distance Travel Shifts Due to Self-Driving Vehicles. Under review for publication in Transport Policy.
URL: < http://www.caee.utexas.edu/prof/kockelman/public_html/TRB18AVLong-DistanceTravel.pdf > .
Peterson, D., 2011. Addressing Challenges to Electric Vehicle Charging in Multifamily Residential Buildings. URL: < https://luskin.ucla.edu/sites/default/files/EV_
Multifamily_Report_10_2011.pdf > .
Reiter, M.S., Kockelman, K.M., 2017. Emissions and exposure costs of electric versus conventional vehicles: a case study in Texas. Int. J. Sustain. Transport. 11 (7),
486–492.
Roeva, O., Fidanova, S. and Paprzycki, M., 2013, September. Influence of the population size on the genetic algorithm performance in case of cultivation process
modelling. In: Computer Science and Information Systems (FedCSIS), 2013 Federated Conference on IEEE, pp. 371–376.
Rylander, S.G.B., 2002. Optimal population size and the genetic algorithm. Population 100 (400), 900.
Schey, S., Scoffield, D., Smart, J., 2012. A first look at the impact of electric vehicle charging on the electric grid in the EV project. World Electric Vehic. J. 5 (3),
667–678.
Schnell, J.L., Naik, V., Horowitz, L.W., Paulot, F., Ginoux, P., Zhao, M., Horton, D.E., 2019. Air quality impacts from the electrification of light-duty passenger vehicles
in the United States. Atmos. Environ. 208, 95–102.
Sheffi, Y., 1985. Urban transportation networks: equilibrium analysis with mathematical programming methods. Traffic engineering control. Prentice-Hall, ISBN 0-13-
93-972. URL: < http://web.mit.edu/sheffi/www/selectedMedia/sheffi_urban_trans_networks.pdf > .
Shahraki, N., Cai, H., Turkay, M., Xu, M., 2015. Optimal locations of electric public charging stations using real world vehicle travel patterns. Transport. Res. Part D:
Transp. Environ. 41, 165–176.
Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., Van Wee, B., 2014. The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy
Policy 68, 183–194.
Simpson, A., 2006. Cost-benefit analysis of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technology. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado, USA.
Smith, M., Castellano, J., 2015. Costs Associated with Non-Residential Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment: Factors to consider in the implementation of electric vehicle
charging stations (No. DOE/EE-1289).

15
Y. Huang and K.M. Kockelman Transportation Research Part D xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Tuttle, D.P., Baldick, R., 2012. The evolution of plug-in electric vehicle-grid interactions. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 3 (1), 500–505.
Transportation Research Board National Research Council, 2000. Highway capacity manual. TRB Business Office.
Transportation Networks for Research Core Team. Transportation Networks for Research. Retrieved from < https://github.com/bstabler/TransportationNetworks > .
UMass Donahue Institute, 2018. Summary of the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2018 State-Level Population Estimate for Massachusetts. Retrieved from < http://www.
donahue.umassp.edu/documents/UMDI_State_Pop_2018.pdf > .
Union of Cencerned Scientists (UCS), 2018. Electric Vehicle Charging: Types, Time, Cost and Savings. Retrieved from < https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/
electric-vehicles/car-charging-time-type-cost > .
U.S. Census Bureau, 2015. TIGER/Line Shapefile, 2015, state, Massachusetts, Primary and Secondary Roads State-based Shapefile. Retrieved from: < https://catalog.
data.gov/dataset/tiger-line-shapefile-2015-state-massachusetts-primary-and-secondary-roads-state-based-shapefile/ > .
U.S. Department of Energya, 2019. Emissions from Hybrid and Plug-In Electric Vehicles. Retrieved from: https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html#
wheel.
U.S. Department of Energyb, 2019. eGallon. How much does it cost to drive an electric vehicle the same distance you could go on one gallon of gas? Retrieved
from: < https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/06/f1/eGallon-methodology-final.pdf > .
U.S. Department of Energyc, 2019. Alternative Fuels Data Center – Fuel Properties Comparison. Retrieved from < https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_
chart.pdf > .
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2019. Automotive Trends Report. Retrieved from: < https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-
report#Highlight1 > .
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019. Electric Power Monthly with Data for March 2019. URL: https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/current_month/
epm.pdf.
Voelcker, J., 2013. Are California's electric-car charging stations too congested? URL: < https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2013/0228/Are-California-s-
electric-car-charging-stations-too-congested > .
Wang, Y.W., Wang, C.R., 2010. Locating passenger vehicle refueling stations. Transport. Res. Part E: Logist. Transport. Rev. 46 (5), 791–801.
Wardrop, J.G., 1952. Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. In: Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, volume II, pp. 325–378.
Weber, A., 1909. The Theory of the Location of Industries. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
Winters, M., Teschke, K., Grant, M., Setton, E.M., Brauer, M., 2010. How far out of the way will we travel? Built environment influences on route selection for bicycle
and car travel. Transp. Res. Rec. 2190 (1), 1–10.
Wood, E.W., Rames, C.L., Muratori, M., Srinivasa Raghavan, S. and Melaina, M.W., 2017. National plug-in electric vehicle infrastructure analysis (No. NREL/TP-5400-
69031; DOE/GO-102017-5040). National Renewable Energy Lab, Golden, CO, United States.
Xie, F., Liu, C., Li, S., Lin, Z., Huang, Y., 2018. Long-term strategic planning of inter-city fast charging infrastructure for battery electric vehicles. Transport. Res. Part E:
Logist. Transport. Rev. 109, 261–276.
Xi, X., Sioshansi, R., Marano, V., 2013. Simulation–optimization model for location of a public electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Transport. Res. Part D: Transp.
Environ. 22, 60–69.
Yang, H., 1997. Sensitivity analysis for the elastic-demand network equilibrium problem with applications. Transport. Res. Part B: Methodol. 31 (1), 55–70.
Yao, W., Zhao, J., Wen, F., Dong, Z., Xue, Y., Xu, Y., Meng, K., 2014. A multi-objective collaborative planning strategy for integrated power distribution and electric
vehicle charging systems. IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 29 (4), 1811–1821.
Zhang, J., Pourazarm, S., Cassandras, C.G., Paschalidis, I.C., 2016a. The price of anarchy in transportation networks by estimating user cost functions from actual
traffic data. In: IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pp. 789–794.
Zhang, Y., Qian, Z.S., Sprei, F., Li, B., 2016b. The impact of car specifications, prices and incentives for battery electric vehicles in Norway: Choices of heterogeneous
consumers. Transport. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 69, 386–401.
Zhou, J., Lam, W.H., Heydecker, B.G., 2005. The generalized Nash equilibrium model for oligopolistic transit market with elastic demand. Transport. Res. Part B:
Methodol. 39 (6), 519–544.

16