Effect of route overlapping feature on stochastic assignment paradox

References

• Akamatsu, T. 2000. “A Dynamic Traffic Equilibrium Assignment Paradox.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 34 (6): 515–531. doi:10.1016/S0191-2615(99)00036-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ameli, M., J.-P. Lebacque, and L. Leclerco. 2020. “Improving Traffic Network Performance with Road Banning Strategy: A Simulation Approach Comparing User Equilibrium and System Optimum.” Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory 99: 101995. doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2019.101995.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnott, R., A. D. Palma, and R. Lindsey. 1993. “Properties of Dynamic Traffic Equilibrium Involving Bottlenecks, Including a Paradox and Metering.” Transportation Science 27 (2): 148–160. doi:10.1287/trsc.27.2.148.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bansal, P., R. A. Daziano, and M. Achtnicht. 2018. “Extending the logit-mixed Logit Model for a Combination of Random and Fixed Parameters.” Journal of Choice Modeling 27: 88–96. doi:10.1016/j.jocm.2017.10.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekhor, S., M. E. Ben-Akiva, and M. S. Ramming. 2002. “Adaptation of Logit Kernel to Route Choice Situation.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1805 (1): 78–85. doi:10.3141/1805-10.
   Google Scholar
• Bekhor, S., M. E. Ben-Akiva, and M. S. Ramming. 2006. “Evaluation of Choice Set Generation Algorithms for Route Choice Models.” Annals of Operations Research 144 (1): 235–247. doi:10.1007/s10479-006-0009-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekhor, S., and J. N. Prashker. 2001. “Stochastic User Equilibrium Formulation for the Generalized Nested Logit Model.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1752 (1): 84–90. doi:10.3141/1752-12.
   Google Scholar
• Bekhor, S., L. Reznikova, and T. Toledo. 2007. “Application of cross-nested Logit Route Choice Model in Stochastic User Equilibrium Traffic Assignment.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2003 (1): 41–49. doi:10.3141/2003-06.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bekhor, S., T. Toledo, and L. Reznikova. 2008. “A path-based Algorithm for the cross-nested Logit Stochastic User Equilibrium.” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering 24 (1): 15–25. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8667.2008.00563.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Akiva, M., and M. Bierlaire. 1999. “Discrete Choice Methods and Their Applications to Short Term Travel Decisions.” In Handbook of Transportation Science, edited by R. W. Hall. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Bhat, C. R. 2001. “Quasi-random Maximum Simulated Likelihood Estimation of the Mixed Multinomial Logit Model.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 35 (7): 677–693. doi:10.1016/S0191-2615(00)00014-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bittihn, S., and A. Schadschneider. 2018. “Braess Paradox in a Network with Stochastic Dynamics and Fixed Strategies.” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 507: 133–152. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2018.05.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braess, D. 1968. “Über ein paradox in der verkehrsplanung.” Unternehmensforschung 12: 258–268.
   Google Scholar
• Braess, D., A. Nagurney, and T. Wakolbinger. 2005. “On a Paradox of Traffic Planning.” Transportation Science 39 (4): 446–450. doi:10.1287/trsc.1050.0127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cascetta, E., A. Nuzzolo, F. Russo, and A. Vitetta 1996. “A Modified Logit Route Choice Model Overcoming Path Overlapping Problems: Specification and Some Calibration Results for Interurban Networks.” Proceedings of the 13th International Symposium on Transportation and Traffic Theory, Leon, France. 697–711.
   Google Scholar
• Castillo, E., J. M. Menéndez, P. Jiménez, and A. Rivas. 2008. “Closed Form Expressions for Choice Probabilities in the Weibull Case.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 42 (4): 373–380. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2007.08.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, Z., J. Yao, A. Chen, and S. An. 2022. “Analysis of a Multiplicative Hybrid Route Choice Model in Stochastic Assignment Paradox.” Transportmetrica A: Transport Science 18 (3): 1544–1568. doi:10.1080/23249935.2021.1953189.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, A., S. Ryu, X. Xu, and K. Choi. 2014. “Computation and Application of the Paired Combinatorial Logit Stochastic Traffic Equilibrium Problem.” Computers & Operations Research 43 (1): 68–77. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2013.08.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dafermos, S., and A. Nagurney. 1984. “On Some Traffic Equilibrium Theory Paradoxes.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 18 (2): 101–110. doi:10.1016/0191-2615(84)90023-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daganzo, C., and Y. Sheffi. 1977. “On Stochastic Models of Traffic Assignment.” Transportation Science 11 (3): 257–274. doi:10.1287/trsc.11.3.253.
   Google Scholar
• Dashtestaninejad, H., M. Vaziri, and H. Timmermans. 2016. “Rural location-based Activity Generation: A Case Study of Iran Villages.” Transportation Letters-the International Journal of Transportation Research 8: 131–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De La Barra, T., B. Perez, and J. Anez, 1993. “Multidimensional Path Search and Assignment.” Proceedings of the Twenty-first PTRC Summer Annual Meeting England. University of Manchester, 307–319.
   Google Scholar
• Di, X., X. He, X. Guo, and H. X. Liu. 2014. “Braess Paradox under the Boundedly Rational User Equilibria.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 67: 86–108. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2014.04.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisk, C. 1979. “More Paradoxes in the Equilibrium Assignment Problem.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 13 (4): 305–309. doi:10.1016/0191-2615(79)90023-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frank, M. 1981. “The Braess Paradox.” Mathematical Programming 20 (1): 283–302. doi:10.1007/BF01589354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gliebe, J. P., F. S. Koppleman, and A. Ziliaskopoulos, 1999. “Route Choice Using a Paired Combinatorial Logit Model.” Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Hacohen, S., S. Shoval, and N. Shvalb. 2020. “The Paradox of Pedestrian’s Risk Aversion.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 142: 105518. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2020.105518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallefjord, A., K. Jornsten, and S. Storoy. 1994. “Traffic Equilibrium Paradoxes When Travel Demand Is Elastic.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Operations Research 11 (1): 41–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang, Y., and W. Y. Szeto. 2016. “Reliability-based Stochastic Transit Assignment: Formulations and Capacity Paradox.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 93: 181–206. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2016.06.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitthamkesorn, S., and A. Chen. 2013. “A path-size Weibit Stochastic User Equilibrium Model.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 57: 378–397. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2013.06.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knadel, W. 1969. Graphentheoretische Methoden und ihre Anwendungen. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Ling, X., D. Kong, N. Guo, K. Zhu, and J. Long. 2020. “Traffic Congestion in Dynamical Network with Finite Storage Capacity.” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 545: 123460. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2019.123460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma, C., Q. Cai, S. Alam, B. Sridhar, and V. N. Duong. 2019. “Airway Network Management Using Braess’s Paradox [J].” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 105: 565–579. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2019.06.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nagurney, A. 2000. “Congested Urban Transportation Networks and Emission Paradoxes.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 5 (2): 145–151. doi:10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00031-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papola, A., F. Tinessa, and V. Marzano. 2018. “Application of the Combination of Random Utility Models (Corum) to Route Choice.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 111: 304–326. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2018.03.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pas, E., and S. Principio. 1997. “Braess’ Paradox: Some New Insights.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 31 (3): 265–276. doi:10.1016/S0191-2615(96)00024-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prashker, J., and S. Bekhor. 2000. “Some Observations on Stochastic User Equilibrium and System Optimal of Traffic Assignment.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 34 (4): 277–291. doi:10.1016/S0191-2615(99)00025-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prashker, J. N., and S. Bekhor. 2004. “Route Choice Models Used in the Stochastic User Equilibrium Problem: A Review.” Transport Reviews 24 (4): 437–463. doi:10.1080/0144164042000181707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramming, M. S. 2002. “Network knowledge and route choice.” PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Sheffi, Y. 1985. Urban Transportation Networks. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Sheffi, Y., and C. Daganzo. 1978. “Another Paradox of Traffic Flow.” Transportation Research 12 (1): 43–46. doi:10.1016/0041-1647(78)90106-5.
   Google Scholar
• Steinberg, R., and W. Zangwill. 1983. “The Prevalence of Braess’ Paradox.” Transportation Science 17 (3): 301–318. doi:10.1287/trsc.17.3.301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szeto, W. Y. 2011. “Cooperative Game Approaches to Measuring Network Reliability considering Paradoxes.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 19 (2): 229–241. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2010.05.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szeto, W. Y., and Y. Jiang. 2014. “Transit Assignment: Approach-based Formulation, Extragradient Method, and Paradox.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 62 62: 51–76. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2014.01.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Train, K. 2016. “Mixed Logit with a Flexible Mixing Distribution.” Journal of Choice Modeling 19: 40–53. doi:10.1016/j.jocm.2016.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wada, K., K. Satsukawa, M. Smith, and T. Akamatsu. 2019. “Network Throughput under Dynamic User Equilibrium: Queue Spillback, Paradox and Traffic Control.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 126: 391–413. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2018.04.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Y., and W. Y. Szeto. 2017. “Excessive Noise Paradoxes in Urban Transportation Networks.” Transportmetrica A: Transport Science 13 (3): 195–221. doi:10.1080/23249935.2016.1245800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wardrop, J. G. 1952. “Some Theoretical Aspects of Road Traffic Research.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 1 (2): 325–378. doi:10.1680/ipeds.1952.11259.
   Google Scholar
• Xu, X., A. Chen, S. Kitthamkesorn, H. Yang, and H. Lo. 2016. “Modeling Absolute and Relative Cost Differences in Stochastic User Equilibrium Problem.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 81: 686–703. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2015.05.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, H., and M. G. H. Bell. 1998. “A Capacity Paradox in Network Design and How to Avoid It.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 32 (7): 539–545.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, C., and A. Chen. 2009. “Sensitivity Analysis of the Combined Travel Demand Model with Applications.” European Journal of Operational Research 198 (3): 909–921. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2008.09.044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yao, J., and A. Chen. 2014. “An Analysis of Logit and Weibit Route Choices in Stochastic Assignment Paradox.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 69: 31–49. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2014.07.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yao, J., Z. Cheng, S. An, and A. Chen, 2018. “Analysis of a Multiplicative Hybrid Route Choice Model in Stochastic Assignment Paradox.” The 97th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington D.C.
   Google Scholar
• Yao, J., Z. Cheng, J. Dai, A. Chen, and S. An. 2019a. “Traffic Assignment Paradox Incorporating Congestion and Stochastic Perceived Error Simultaneously.” Transportmetrica A: Transport Science 15 (2): 307–325. doi:10.1080/23249935.2018.1474962.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yao, J., W. Huang, A. Chen, Z. Cheng, S. An, and G. Xu. 2019b. “Paradox Links Can Improve System Efficiency: An Illustration in Traffic Assignment Problem.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 129: 35–49. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2019.07.018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yao, J., F. Shi, S. An, and J. Wang. 2015. “Evaluation of Exclusive Bus Lanes in a bi-modal Degradable Road Network.” Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 60: 36–51. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2015.08.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, Y., and H. Ieda. 2002. “Optimal Improvement Scheme for Network Reliability.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1783 (1): 1–6. doi:10.3141/1783-01.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou, Z., A. Chen, and S. Bekhor. 2012. “C-logit Stochastic User Equilibrium Model: Formulations and Solution Algorithm.” Transportmetrica 8 (1): 17–41. doi:10.1080/18128600903489629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, H., Y. Sun, X. Qin, X. Xu, and R. Yao. 2020. “Modeling Discretionary lane-changing Behavior on Urban Streets considering Drivers’ Heterogeneity.” Transportation Letters-the International Journal of Transportation Research 12:213–222.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zverovich, V., and E. Avineri. 2015. “Braess’ Paradox in a Generalized Traffic Network.” Journal of Advanced Transportation 49 (1): 114–138. doi:10.1002/atr.1269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar