Journal of the Korean Operations Research and Management Science Society (한국경영과학회지)

The Korean Operations Research and Management Science Society (한국경영과학회)
권호 표지

A Model for Detecting Braess Paradox in General Transportation Networks

일반 교통망에서 브라이스 역설 발견 모형

  • 박구현 (홍익대학교 정보산업공학과)
  • Published : 2007.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study is for detecting the Braess Paradox by stable dynamics in general transportation networks. Stable dynamics, suggested by Nesterov and de Palma[18], is a new model which describes and provides a stable state of congestion in urban transportation networks. In comparison with user equilibrium model based on link latency function in analyzing transportation networks, stable dynamics requires few parameters and is coincident with intuitions and observations on the congestion. Therefore it is expected to be an useful analysis tool for transportation planners. The phenomenon that increasing capacity of a network, for example creating new links, may decrease its performance is called Braess Paradox. It has been studied intensively under user equilibrium model with link latency function since Braess[5] demonstrated a paradoxical example. However it is an open problem to detect the Braess Paradox under stable dynamics. In this study, we suggest a method to detect the Paradox in general networks under stable dynamics. In our model, we decide whether Braess Paradox will occur in a given network. We also find Braess links or Braess crosses if a network permits the paradox. We also show an example how to apply it in a network.

Keywords

References

  1. Akamatsu, T., 'A Dynamic Traffic Assignment Paradox,' Transportation Research B, Vol.34B, 2000, pp.515-531
  2. Akamatsu, T. and B. Heydecker, 'Detecting Dynamic Traffic Assignment Capacity Paradoxes in Saturated Networks,' Transportation Science, Vol.37, 2003, pp.123-138 https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.37.2.123.15245
  3. Beckmann, M., C. McGuire, and C. Winsten, Studies in Economics of Transportation, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1956
  4. Bernstein, D.H. and T.E. Smith, 'Equilibria for Networks with Lower Semicontinuous Costs : With an Application to Congested Pricing,' Transportation Science, Vol.28, 1994, pp.221-235 https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.28.3.221
  5. Braess, D., A. Nagurney and T. Wakolbinger, 'On a Paradox of Traffic Planning,' Transportation Science, Vol.39, 2005, pp.446-450. (Translated from the original German : Braess, D., 'Uber ein Paradoxon aus der Verkehrsplanung,' Unternehmensforschung, Vol.12, 1968, pp.258-268
  6. Burer, S. and D. Vandenbussche, 'A Finite Branch-and-Bound Algorithm for Nonconvex Quadratic Programming via Semidefinite Relaxation,' to appear in Mathematical Programming (Series A)
  7. Catoni, S. and S. Pallottino, 'Traffic Equilibrium Paradoxes,' Transportation Science, Vol.25, 1991, pp.240-244 https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.25.3.240
  8. Clarke, F.H., Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis, J. Wiley and Sons, 1983
  9. Dafermos, S. and A. Nagurney, 'On Some Traffic Equilibrium Theory Paradoxes,' Transportation Research B, Vol.18B, 1984, pp. 101-110
  10. Devarajan, S., 'A Note of Network Equilibrium and Noncooperative Games,' Transportation Research B, Vol.15B, 1981, pp. 421-426
  11. Fisk, C., 'More Paradoxes in the Equilibrium Assignment Problem,' Transportation Research B, Vol.13B, 1979, pp.305-309
  12. Frank, M., 'The Braess Paradox,' Mathematical Programming, Vol.20, 1981, pp.283- 302 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01589354
  13. Friesz, T.L., 'Transportation Network Equilibrium, Design and Aggregation : Key Developments and Research Opportunities,' Transportation Research A, Vol.19A, 1985, pp.413-427
  14. Harker, P.T., 'Multiple Equilibrium Behaviors on Networks,' Transportation Science, Vol.22, 1988, pp.39-46 https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.22.1.39
  15. Murchland, J.D., 'Braess's Paradox of Traffic Flow,' Transportation Research, Vol.4, 1970, pp.391-394 https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-1647(70)90196-6
  16. Nagurney, A., Network Economics : A Variational Inequality Approach, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1993
  17. Nesterov, Y. and A. de Palma, 'Stable Traffic Equilibria : Properties and Applications,' Optimization and Engineering, Vol.1, 2000, pp.29-50 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010042405534
  18. Nesterov, Y. and A. de Palma, 'Stable Dynamics in Transportation Systems,' CORE DP #00/27, University of Louvain, Belgium, 2000
  19. Nesterov, Y. and A. de Palma, 'Park and Ride for the Day Period and Morning- Evening Commute,' Mathematical and Computational Models for Congestion Charging (Applied Optimization, Vol.101, Springer US), 2006, pp.143-157
  20. Pas, E.I. and S.L. Principio, 'Braess' Paradox : Some New Insights,' Transportation Research B, Vol.31B, 1997, pp.265-276
  21. Roughgarden, T., 'On the Severity of Braess's Paradox : Designing Networks for Selfish Users is Hard,' Journal of Computer and System Sciences, Vol.72, 2006, pp.922- 953 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcss.2005.05.009
  22. Steiberg, R. and W. Zangwill, 'The Prevalence of Braess Paradox,' Transportation Science, Vol.17, 1983, pp.301-318 https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.17.3.301
  23. Wardrop, J.G., 'Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research,' in Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineering, Part II, 1952, pp.325-378
  24. Yang, H. and G.H. Bell, 'A Capacity Paradox in Network Design and How to Avoid It,' Transportation Research A, Vol.32A, 1998, pp.539-545
  25. U.S. Bureau of Public Roads, Traffic Assignment Manual, Washington, D.C., 1964
  26. 'Updated BPR Parameters Using HCM Procedures,' cited from 'Traffic Engineering : Planning for Traffic Loads,' http://www.sierrafoot.org/local/gp/engineering.html