Abstract
This study examined the detection of the Braess Paradox by stable dynamics in general congested transportation networks. Stable dynamics, suggested by Nesterov and de Palma (2003), is a new model which describes and provides a stable state of congestion in urban transportation networks. In comparison with the user equilibrium model, which is based on the arc travel time function in analyzing transportation networks, stable dynamics requires few parameters and is coincident with intuitions and observations on congestion. It is therefore expected to be a useful analysis tool for transportation planners. The phenomenon whereby increasing network capacity, for example creating new routes, known as arcs, may decrease its performance is called the Braess Paradox. It has been studied intensively under user equilibrium models with the arc travel time function since it was first demonstrated by Braess (1968). However, the development of a general model to detect the Braess Paradox under stable dynamics models remains an open problem. In this study, we suggest a model to detect the paradox in general networks under stable dynamics. In our model, we decide whether the Braess Paradox will occur in a given network, detect Braess arcs or Braess crosses if the network permits the paradox, and present a numerical example of the application of the model to a given network.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akamatsu T (2000) A dynamic traffic equilibrium assignment paradox. Transp Res B34:515–531
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
Beckmann M, McGuire C, Winsten C (1956) Studies in economics of transportation. Yale University Press, New Haven
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
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
Bureau of Public Roads (1964) Updated BPR parameters using HCM procedures, traffic engineering: Planning for traffic loads, Traffic Assignment Manual, Washington, D.C.
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
Catoni S, Pallottino S (1991) Traffic equilibrium paradoxes. Transp Sci 25:240–244 doi:10.1287/trsc.25.3.240
Clarke FH (1983) Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis. Wiley & Sons
Dafermos S, Nagurney A (1984) On some traffic equilibrium theory paradoxes. Transp Res 18:101–110
Devarajan S (1981) A note on network equilibrium and noncooperative games. Transp Res B15:421–426
Fisk C (1979) More paradoxes in the equilibrium assignment problem. Transp Res B13:305–309
Frank M (1981) The Braess paradox. Math Program 20:283–302 doi:10.1007/BF01589354
Friesz TL (1985) Transportation network equilibrium, design and aggregation: key developments and research opportunities. Transp Res A19:413–427
Harker PT (1988) Multiple equilibrium behaviors on networks. Transp Sci 22:39–46 doi:10.1287/trsc.22.1.39
Murchland JD (1970) Braess’s paradox of traffic flow. Transp Res 4:391–394 doi:10.1016/0041-1647(70)90196-6
Nagurney A (1993) Network economics: a variational inequality approach. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht
Nesterov Y, de Palma A (2000) Stable traffic equilibria: properties and applications. Optim Eng 1:29–50 doi:10.1023/A:1010042405534
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
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
Pas EI, Principio SL (1997) Braess’ paradox: some new insights. Transp Res B31:265–276
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
Steinberg R, Zangwill W (1983) The prevalence of Braess paradox. Transp Sci 17:301–318 doi:10.1287/trsc.17.3.301
Wardrop JG (1952) Some theoretical aspects of road traffic research. Proceedings - Institution of Civil Engineers (Part II):325–378
Yang H, Bell GH (1998) A capacity paradox in network design and how to avoid it. Transp Res A32:539–545
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Park, K. Detecting Braess Paradox Based on Stable Dynamics in General Congested Transportation Networks. Netw Spat Econ 11, 207–232 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-009-9101-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-009-9101-3