Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 383–406 | Cite as

Linear Programming Models for the User and System Optimal Dynamic Network Design Problem: Formulations, Comparisons and Extensions

  • Satish V. UkkusuriEmail author
  • S. Travis Waller


In this paper we formulate a network design model in which the traffic flows satisfy dynamic user equilibrium conditions for a single destination. The model presented here incorporates the Cell Transmission Model (CTM); a traffic flow model capable of capturing shockwaves and link spillovers. Comparisons are made between the properties of the Dynamic User equilibrium Network Design Problem (DUE NDP) and an existing Dynamic System Optimal (DSO) NDP formulation. Both network design models have different objective functions with similar constraint sets which are linear and convex. Numerical demonstrations are made on multiple networks to demonstrate the efficacy of the model and demonstrate important differences between the DUE and DSO NDP approaches. In addition, the flexibility of the approach is demonstrated by extending the formulation to account for demand uncertainty. This is formulated as a stochastic programming problem and initial test results are demonstrated on test networks. It is observed that not accounting for demand uncertainty explicitly, provides sub-optimal solution to the DUE NDP problem.


Dynamic traffic assignment Equilibrium Linear programming Network design Recourse Stochastic programming Transportation networks 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdulaal M, LeBlanc LJ (1979) Continuous equilibrium network design models. Transp Res 13B:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Birge JR, Ho JK (1993) Optimal flows in stochastic dynamic networks with congestion. Oper Res 41:203–216Google Scholar
  3. Birge JR, Louveaux K (1997) Introduction to stochastic programming. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Daganzo CF (1994) The cell transmission model: a simple dynamic representation of highway traffic consistent with the hydrodynamic theory. Transp Res 28B(4):269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daganzo CF (1995) The cell transmission model, part II: network traffic. Transp Res 29B(2):79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis GA (1994) Exact local solution of the continuous network design problem via stochastic user equilibrium assignment. Transp Res 28B:61–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Friesz T, Cho H, Mehta N, Tobin R, Anandalingam G (1992) A simulated annealing approach to the network design problem with variational inequality constraints. Transp Sci 26:18–25Google Scholar
  8. Golani H, Waller ST (2004) A combinatorial approach for multi-destination dynamic traffic assignment. Transp Res Rec no. 1882 and Journal of the Transportation Research Board 70–78Google Scholar
  9. Heydecker B (2002) Dynamic equilibrium network design. In: Taylor MP (ed) Proc. 15th ISTTT conference. Pergamon, Adelaide, pp 349–369Google Scholar
  10. Higle JL, Sen S (1999) An introductory tutorial on stochastic linear programming models. Interfaces 29:33–61Google Scholar
  11. Janson BN (1995) Network design effects of dynamic traffic assignment. J Transp Eng 121(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jeon K, Ukkusuri SV, Waller ST (2006) Selectorecombinative genetic algorithm to relax computational complexity of discrete network design problem. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, no. 1964. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp 91–103Google Scholar
  13. Karoonsoontawong A, Waller ST (2006) A comparison of system- and user-optimal stochastic dynamic network design models using Monte Carlo bounding techniques. Journal of Transportation Research Board 91–102Google Scholar
  14. LeBlanc LJ, Boyce D (1986) A bi-level programming algorithm for the exact solution of the network design problem with user-optimal traffic flows. Transp Res 20B:259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li Y, Waller ST, Ziliaskopoulos AK (2003) A decomposition method for system-optimal dynamic traffic assignment. Networks and Spatial Economics 3(4):441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Magnanti TL, Wong RT (1984) Network design and transportation planning: models and algorithms. Transp Sci 18:1–55Google Scholar
  17. Mahmassani HS (1984) Uncertainty in transportation system evaluation: issues and approaches. Transp Plan Technol 9(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahmassani HS, Peeta S, Hu TY, Ziliaskopoulos AK (1993) Dynamic traffic assignment with multiple user classes for real-time ATIS/ATMS applications. Proc. advanced traffic management conference. FHWA, US DOT, Washington DC, pp 91–114Google Scholar
  19. Marcotte P (1983) Network optimization with continuous control parameters. Transp Sci 17:181–197Google Scholar
  20. Mouskos K (1992) A taboo-search based approach for network design. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
  21. Nguyen S, Dupis C (1984) An efficient method for computing traffic equilibria in networks with asymmetric transportation costs. Transp Sci 18:185–202Google Scholar
  22. Peeta S, Ziliaskopoulos A (2001) Foundations of dynamic traffic assignment: the past, the present and the future. Networks and Spatial Economics 1(3/4):233–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Suwansirikul C, Friesz TL, Tobin RL (1987) Equilibrium decomposed optimization: a heuristic for the continuous equilibrium network design problem. Transp Sci 21:254–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tzeng GH, Tsaur (1997) Application of multiple criteria decision making for network improvement plan model. J Adv Transp 31:48–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ukkusuri S (2002) Linear programs for user optimal dynamic traffic assignment problem. Master’s thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  26. Waller ST, Ziliaskopoulos AK (2001) A dynamic and stochastic approach to network design. Journal of the Transportation Research Board, no. 1771, 106–114Google Scholar
  27. Waller ST, Ziliaskopoulos A (2006) A combinatorial user optimal dynamic traffic assignment algorithm. Ann Oper Res ISSN: 0254–5330, 1572–9338Google Scholar
  28. Yang H, Bell MGH (1998) Models and algorithms for road network design: a review and some new developments. Transp Rev 18:257–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ziliaskopoulos AK (2000) A linear programming model for the single destination system optimum dynamic traffic assignment problem. Transp Sci 34(1):37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Transportation Systems Engineering, Department of Civil & Environmental EngineeringRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations