Dynamic Path Optimization in Sharing Mode to Relieve Urban Traffic Congestion

Table 8

Comparative analysis for different numbers of stops.

Number of stops		Stop service coverage	Stop-location coordinates	Initial route	Global optimal solution (Gbest)	Actual distance (km)
4	P1	1, 2, 3, 4	(2.27, 6.34)	E1 ⟶ P1 ⟶ E1; E1 ⟶ P2 ⟶ E2 ⟶ E1; P0 ⟶ P3 ⟶ P4 ⟶ P0	0.6100	12.20
	P2	5, 6, 7, 8, 11	(8.30, 2.26)
	P3	9, 10, 16, 17	(13.50, 0.90)
	P4	12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20	(13.99, 3.82)
5	P1	1, 2, 3, 4	(2.27, 6.34)	E1 ⟶ P1 ⟶ E1; E1 ⟶ P2 ⟶ E2 ⟶ E1; E1 ⟶ P4 ⟶ P5 ⟶ P3 ⟶ E1	0.6855	13.71
	P2	5, 6, 7, 8, 11	(8.30, 2.30)
	P3	9, 10	(12.02, 0.52)
	P4	12, 13, 14, 15, 19	(12.68, 3.62)
	P5	16, 17, 18, 20	(16.58, 2.15)
6	P1	1, 2, 3, 4	(2.27, 6.34)	E1 ⟶ P2 ⟶ P1 ⟶ E2 ⟶ E1; E1 ⟶ P5 ⟶ E2 ⟶ E1; E1 ⟶ P4 ⟶ P6 ⟶ P3 ⟶ E1	0.7980	15.96
	P2	5, 6, 7, 8	(8.00, 2.20)
	P3	9, 10	(11.96, 0.50)
	P4	11, 12, 13, 15	(12.44, 3.40)
	P5	14	(10.80, 5.00)
	P6	16, 17, 18, 19, 20	(16.23, 2.81)