IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jregsc/v41y2001i4p681-694.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probing A Traffic Congestion Controversy: A Comment

Author

Listed:
  • Erik T. Verhoef

Abstract

Ohta (2001) claims to have resolved a die‐hard controversy on traffic congestion modeling by defining an inverse aggregate demand function that has traffic density as its argument—in Ohta’s terminology the ‘primitive term.’Using this demand function, Ohta shows that ‘hypercongestion’ may very well be an optimal stationary state. This contribution argues that at least if what road users demand is completed trips, and if time spent on the road while traveling implies a cost, then Ohta’s approach is fundamentally flawed. Also the conclusion that hypercongestion can be optimal is no longer valid.

Suggested Citation

  • Erik T. Verhoef, 2001. "Probing A Traffic Congestion Controversy: A Comment," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(4), pages 681-694, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jregsc:v:41:y:2001:i:4:p:681-694
    DOI: 10.1111/0022-4146.00238
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4146.00238
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/0022-4146.00238?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Verhoef, Erik T., 2005. "Speed-flow relations and cost functions for congested traffic: Theory and empirical analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 39(7-9), pages 792-812.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jregsc:v:41:y:2001:i:4:p:681-694. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-4146 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.