Detecting Braess Paradox Based on Stable Dynamics in General Congested Transportation Networks

Networks and Spatial Economics

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 207-232

  Park, Koohyun ^a  

^a Hong Ik University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Braess paradox; Congestion; Stable dynamics; Transportation network; User equilibrium; Wardrop principle

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955469675     PISSN: 1566113X     EISSN: 15729427     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11067-009-9101-3     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Akamatsu T (2000) A dynamic traffic equilibrium assignment paradox. Transp Res B34: 515-531.
2. Akamatsu T, Heydecker B (2003) Detecting dynamic traffic assignment capacity paradoxes in saturated networks. Transp Sci 37: 123-138 doi: 10. 1287/trsc. 37. 2. 123. 15245.
3. Beckmann M, McGuire C, Winsten C (1956) Studies in economics of transportation. Yale University Press, New Haven.
4. Bernstein DH, Smith TE (1994) Equilibria for networks with lower semicontinuous costs: with an application to congestion pricing. Transp Sci 28: 221-235 doi: 10. 1287/trsc. 28. 3. 221.
5. Braess D (1968) Uber ein Paradoxon aus der Verkehrsplanung. Unternehmensforschung 12: 258-268 (Translated into English: Braess, D., A. Nagurney and T. Wakolbinger. (2005). On a Paradox of Traffic Planning. Transportation Science, 39, 446-450 doi: 10. 1287/trsc. 1050. 0127.
6. Bureau of Public Roads (1964) Updated BPR parameters using HCM procedures, traffic engineering: Planning for traffic loads, Traffic Assignment Manual, Washington, D. C.
7. Burer S, Vandenbussche D (2008) A finite branch-and-bound algorithm for nonconvex quadratic programming via semidefinite relaxation. Math Program A113: 259-282 doi: 10. 1007/s10107-006-0080-6.
8. Catoni S, Pallottino S (1991) Traffic equilibrium paradoxes. Transp Sci 25: 240-244 doi: 10. 1287/trsc. 25. 3. 240.
9. Clarke FH (1983) Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis. Wiley & Sons.
10. Dafermos S, Nagurney A (1984) On some traffic equilibrium theory paradoxes. Transp Res 18: 101-110.
11. Devarajan S (1981) A note on network equilibrium and noncooperative games. Transp Res B15: 421-426.
12. Fisk C (1979) More paradoxes in the equilibrium assignment problem. Transp Res B13: 305-309.
13. Frank M (1981) The Braess paradox. Math Program 20: 283-302 doi: 10. 1007/BF01589354.
14. Friesz TL (1985) Transportation network equilibrium, design and aggregation: key developments and research opportunities. Transp Res A19: 413-427.
15. Harker PT (1988) Multiple equilibrium behaviors on networks. Transp Sci 22: 39-46 doi: 10. 1287/trsc. 22. 1. 39.
16. Murchland JD (1970) Braess's paradox of traffic flow. Transp Res 4: 391-394 doi: 10. 1016/0041-1647(70)90196-6.
17. Nagurney A (1993) Network economics: a variational inequality approach. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.
18. Nesterov Y, de Palma A (2000) Stable traffic equilibria: properties and applications. Optim Eng 1: 29-50 doi: 10. 1023/A: 1010042405534.
19. Nesterov Y, de Palma A (2003) Stationary dynamics solutions in congested transportation networks: summary and perspectives. Networks Spatial Econ 3: 371-395 doi: 10. 1023/A: 1025350419398.
20. Nesterov Y, de Palma A (2006) Park and ride for the day period and morning-evening commute. Mathematical and Computational Models for Congestion Charging (Applied Optimization 101, Springer US) 143-157.
21. Pas EI, Principio SL (1997) Braess' paradox: some new insights. Transp Res B31: 265-276.
22. Roughgarden T (2006) On the severity of Braess's paradox: designing networks for selfish users is hard. J Comput Syst Sci 72: 922-953 doi: 10. 1016/j. jcss. 2005. 05. 009.
23. Steinberg R, Zangwill W (1983) The prevalence of Braess paradox. Transp Sci 17: 301-318 doi: 10. 1287/trsc. 17. 3. 301.
24. Wardrop JG (1952) Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. Proceedings - Institution of Civil Engineers (Part II): 325-378.
25. Yang H, Bell GH (1998) A capacity paradox in network design and how to avoid it. Transp Res A32: 539-545.