Navigating congested networks with variable demand: Experimental evidence

Journal of Economic Psychology

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 648-666

  Rapoport, Amnon ^a,b   Mak, Vincent ^a   Zwick, Rami ^a  

^a HONG KONG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY   (Hong Kong)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

Author keywords

Braess paradox; Changes in demand; Experimental study; Traffic networks

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748498240     PISSN: 01674870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joep.2006.06.001     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Arnott R., and Small K. The economics of traffic congestion. American Scientist 82 (1994) 446-455
2. Aumann R.J. Irrationality in game theory. In: Dasgupta P., Gale D., and Maskin E. (Eds). Economic analysis of markets and games (1992), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 214-227
3. Braess D. Über ein Paradoxon aus der Verkehrsplanung. Unternehmensforschung 12 (1968) 258-268
4. Catoni S., and Pallottino S. Traffic equilibrium paradoxes. Transportation Science 25 (1991) 240-244
5. Cohen J.E., and Jeffries C. Congestion resulting from increased capacity in single-server queuing networks. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 5 (1997) 305-310
6. Colman A.M. Game theory and its applications (1995), Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford
7. Dafermos S.C., and Nagurney A. On some traffic equilibrium theory paradoxes. Transportation Research, Series B 18 (1984) 101-110
8. Fisk C. More paradoxes in the equilibrium assignment problem. Transportation Research, Series B 13 (1979) 305-309
9. Frank M. The Braess paradox. Mathematical Programming 20 (1981) 283-302
10. Helbing D. Dynamic decision behavior and optimal guidance through information services: Models and experiments. In: Schreckenberg M., and Selten R. (Eds). Human behavior and traffic networks (2004), Springer, Berlin 48-95
11. Iida Y., Akiyama T., and Uchida T. Experimental analysis of dynamic route choice behavior. Transportation Research 26B (1992) 17-32
12. Murchland J.D. Braess's paradox of traffic flow. Transportation Research 4 (1970) 391-394
13. Pas E.I., and Principio S.L. Braess' paradox: Some new insight. Transportation Research, Series B 31 (1997) 265-276
14. Penchina C.M. Braess paradox: Maximum penalty in a minimal critical network. Transportation Research, Series A 31 (1997) 379-388
15. Rapoport, A., Kugler, T., Dugar, S., & Gisches, E. (2005a). Braess paradox in the laboratory: An experimental study of route choice in traffic networks with asymmetric costs. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona, Department of Management and Policy.
16. Rapoport, A., Kugler, T., Dugar, S., & Gisches, E. (2005b). Choice of routes in congested traffic networks: Experimental tests of the Braess paradox. Unpublished manuscript, University of Arizona, Department of Management and Policy.
17. Roughgarden, T. (2002). Selfish routing. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Cornell University.
18. Roughgarden T. Selfish routing and the price of anarchy (2005), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
19. Roughgarden T., and Tardos E. How bad is selfish routing?. Journal of the ACM 49 (2002) 236-259
20. Schelling T.C. The strategy of conflict (1960), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
21. Schelling T.C. Micromotives and macrobehavior (1978), W.W. Norton, New York
22. Selten R., Schreckenberg M., Chmura T., Pitz T., Kube S., Hafstein S., et al. Experimental investigation of day-to-day route-choice behavior and network simulations of Autobahn traffic in North Rhine-Westphalia. In: Schreckenberg M., and Selten R. (Eds). Human behavior and traffic networks (2004), Springer, Berlin 1-21
23. Smith M.J. The existence, uniqueness, and stability of traffic equilibria. Transportation Research, Series B 13 (1979) 295-304
24. Steinberg R., and Stone R.E. The prevalence of paradoxes in transportation equilibrium problems. Transportation Science 22 (1988) 231-241
25. Steinberg R., and Zangwill W.I. On the prevalence of the Braess's paradox. Transportation Science 17 (1983) 301-318
26. Vickrey W.S. Congestion theory and transport investment. American Economic Review 59 (1969) 251-260