Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 239–262 | Cite as

Forecasting and Evaluating Network Growth

  • David LevinsonEmail author
  • Feng Xie
  • Norah M. Oca


This research assesses the implications of existing trends on future network investment, comparing alternative scenarios concerning budgets and investment rules. The main scenarios compare “stated decision rules”, processes encoded in flowcharts and weights developed from official documents or by discussion with agency staff, with “revealed decision rules”, weights estimated statistically based on observed historical behavior. This research specifies the processes necessary to run the network forecasting models with various decision rules. We find that given the relatively small amount of funds available for network growth in a mature system, alternative decision rules make only small differences in overall system performance, though they direct investments to very different locations and affect the trip time and spatial accessibility in a significantly different way.


Network growth Decision-making Forecasting Evaluation The Twin Cities 


  1. Besley T, Coate S (2003) Centralized versus decentralized provision of local public roads: a political economy approach. J Public Econ 87:2611–2637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bureau of Public Roads (1964) Traffic assignment manual. US Dept. of Commerce, Urban Planning Division, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis G, Sanderson K (2002) Building our way out of congestion? Highway capacity for the Twin Cities. Technical report, Mn/DOT 2002-01Google Scholar
  4. de Dios Ortuzar J, Willumsen LG (2001) Modeling transport. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Garrison WL, Marble DF (1962) The structure of transportation networks. Technical report, 62-II:73–88Google Scholar
  6. Kansky K (1969) Structure of transportation networks: relationships between network geometry and regional characteristics. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  7. Knight B (2001) Endogenous federal grants and crowd-out of state government spending: theory and evidence from the federal highway aid program. Am Econ Rev 92(1):71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Levinson D, Karamalaputi R (2003a) Induced supply: a model of highway network expansion at the microscopic level. J Transp Econ Policy 37(3):297–318Google Scholar
  9. Levinson D, Karamalaputi R (2003b) Predicting the construction of new highway links. J Transp Stat 6(2/3):81–89Google Scholar
  10. Levinson D, Yerra B (2006) Self organization of surface transportation networks. Transp Sci 40(2):179–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Levinson D, Montes de Oca N, Xie F (2006) Beyond business as usual: Ensuring the network we want is the network we get. Technical report, Mn/DOT 2006-36Google Scholar
  12. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (2003) Regionally significant ecological areas (RSEA) 2003 assessment results. Technical report, MDNR.
  13. Minnesota Department of Transportation (2001) Metro division transportation system plan. Technical report, MnDOTGoogle Scholar
  14. Minnesota Department of Transportation (2005) 2002 freeway volume-crash summary. Technical report, Office of Traffic, Security and Operations.
  15. Montes de Oca N (2006) Beyond business as usual: ensuring the network we want is the network we get. Master’s thesis, University of MinnesotaGoogle Scholar
  16. Montes de Oca N, Levinson D (2006) Network expansion decision-making in the Twin Cities. Transp Res Rec 1981 (Planning and Analysis 2006):1–11Google Scholar
  17. Oates W (1972) Fiscal federalism. Harcourt Brace, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Sheffi Y (1985) Urban transportation networks: equilibrium analysis with mathematical programming methods. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  19. Suwansirikul C, Friesz TL, Tobin R (1987) Equilibrium decomposed optimization: a heuristic for the continuous equilibrium network design problem. Transp Sci 21(4):261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Taaffe E, Morrill RL, Gould PR (1963) Transportation expansion in underdeveloped countries: a comparative analysis. Geogr Rev 53(4):503–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Yang H, Bell MGH (1998) Models and algorithms for road network design: a review and some new developments. Transp Rev 18:257–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yerra B, Levinson D (2005) The emergence of hierarchy in transportation networks. Ann Reg Sci 39(3):541–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Metropolitan Washington Council of GovernmentsWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Loudoun County - Office of Transportation ServicesLeesburgUSA

Personalised recommendations