Abstract

Traffic paradox is an important phenomenon which needs attention in transportation network design and traffic management. Previous studies on traffic paradox always examined user equilibrium (UE) or stochastic user equilibrium (SUE) conditions with a fixed traffic demand (FD) and set the travel costs of links as constants under the SUE condition. However, traffic demand is elastic, especially when there are new links added to the network that may induce new traffic demand, and the travel costs of links actually depend on the traffic flows on them. This paper comprehensively investigates the traffic paradox under different equilibrium conditions including the user equilibrium and the stochastic user equilibrium with a fixed and elastic traffic demand. Origin-destination (OD) mean unit travel cost (MUTC) has been chosen as the main index to characterize whether the traffic paradox occurs. The impacts of travelers’ perception errors and travel cost sensitivity on the occurrence of the traffic paradox are also analyzed. The conclusions show that the occurrence of the traffic paradox depends on the traffic demand and equilibrium conditions; higher perception errors of travelers may lead to a better network performance, and a higher travel cost sensitivity will create a reversed traffic paradox. Finally, several appropriate traffic management measures are proposed to avoid the traffic paradox and improve the network performance.

References

Braess D. Über ein Paradoxon aus der Verkehrsplanung. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research. 1968; 12(1): 258-268.

Murchland J D. Braess's paradox of traffic flow. Transportation Research. 1970; 4(4): 391-394.

Steinberg R, Zangwill W I. The prevalence of Braess' paradox. Transportation Science. 1983; 17(3): 301-318.

Dafermos S, Nagurney A. On some traffic equilibrium theory paradoxes. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological. 1984; 18(2): 101-110.

Calvert B, Keady G. Braess's paradox and power-law nonlinearities in networks. The ANZIAM Journal. 1993; 35(1): 1-22.

Hallefjord A, Jornsten K, Storoy S. Traffic equilibrium paradoxes when travel demand is elastic. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research. 1994; 11(1): 41-50.

Hallefjord A, Jornsten K, Storoy S. Traffic equilibrium paradoxes when travel demand is elastic. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research. 1994; 11(1): 41-50.

Pas E I, Principio S L. Braess' paradox: Some new insights. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological. 1997; 31(3): 265-276.

Yang H, Bell M G H. A capacity paradox in network design and how to avoid it. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 1998; 32(7): 539-545.

Korilis Y A, Lazar A A, Orda A. Avoiding the Braess paradox in non-cooperative networks. Journal of Applied Probability. 1999; 36(1): 211-222.

Sheffy Y. Urban transportation networks: equilibrium analysis with mathematical programming methods. Traffic engineering control. Prentice-Hall, ISBN 0-13-93-972, 1985.

Zhao C, Fu B, Wang T. Braess paradox and robustness of traffic networks under stochastic user equilibrium. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review. 2014; 61: 135-141.

Arnott R, De Palma A, Lindsey R. Properties of dynamic traffic equilibrium involving bottlenecks, including a paradox and metering. Transportation science. 1993; 27(2): 148-160.

Nagurney A, Qiang Q. A network efficiency measure for congested networks. EPL (Europhysics Letters). 2007; 79(3): 38005.

Zhao C. Dynamic Traffic Network Model and Time-Dependent Braess’ Paradox. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2014, 2014.

ZHAO C, FU B, WANG T. Braess’ paradox phenomenon of congested traffic networks. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology. 2012; 4: 023.

Lo H K, Szeto W Y. Modeling advanced traveler information services: static versus dynamic paradigms. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological. 2004; 38(6): 495-515.

Yang H. System optimum, stochastic user equilibrium, and optimal link tolls. Transportation science. 1999; 33(4): 354-360.