IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

More paradoxes in the equilibrium assignment problem


  • Fisk, Caroline


The sensitivity of travel costs to changes in input flows in the Wardrop equilibrium problem is studied. Examples are given showing that both origin to destination and global travel costs may decrease as a result of an increase in input flows. Other examples show that, in the two-mode equilibrium assignment problem transit origin to destination travel costs may decrease as a result of an increase in automobile input flows.

Suggested Citation

  • Fisk, Caroline, 1979. "More paradoxes in the equilibrium assignment problem," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 305-309, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:transb:v:13:y:1979:i:4:p:305-309

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.


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

    Cited by:

    1. Yin, Yafeng & Madanat, Samer M. & Lu, Xiao-Yun, 2009. "Robust improvement schemes for road networks under demand uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(2), pages 470-479, October.
    2. repec:kap:transp:v:44:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1007_s11116-016-9684-8 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Zhao, Chunxue & Fu, Baibai & Wang, Tianming, 2014. "Braess paradox and robustness of traffic networks under stochastic user equilibrium," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 135-141.
    4. Kenneth A. Small & Xuehao Chu, 2003. "Hypercongestion," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 37(3), pages 319-352, September.
    5. Ming-Chorng Hwang & Hsun-Jung Cho, 2016. "The Classical Braess Paradox Problem Revisited: A Generalized Inverse Method on Non-Unique Path Flow Cases," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 605-622, June.
    6. Shanjiang Zhu & David Levinson & Henry Liu, 2017. "Measuring winners and losers from the new I-35W Mississippi River Bridge," Transportation, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 905-918, September.
    7. Di, Xuan & He, Xiaozheng & Guo, Xiaolei & Liu, Henry X., 2014. "Braess paradox under the boundedly rational user equilibria," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 86-108.
    8. Yang, Chao & Chen, Anthony, 2009. "Sensitivity analysis of the combined travel demand model with applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(3), pages 909-921, November.
    9. repec:spr:joptap:v:167:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s10957-014-0655-y is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Rapoport, Amnon & Kugler, Tamar & Dugar, Subhasish & Gisches, Eyran J., 2009. "Choice of routes in congested traffic networks: Experimental tests of the Braess Paradox," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 538-571, March.
    11. Michael Patriksson, 2004. "Sensitivity Analysis of Traffic Equilibria," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(3), pages 258-281, August.
    12. Wei-Hua Lin & Hong K. Lo, 2009. "Investigating Braess' Paradox with Time-Dependent Queues," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(1), pages 117-126, February.
    13. Takashi Akamatsu & Benjamin Heydecker, 2003. "Detecting Dynamic Traffic Assignment Capacity Paradoxes in Saturated Networks," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(2), pages 123-138, May.
    14. Yao, Jia & Chen, Anthony, 2014. "An analysis of logit and weibit route choices in stochastic assignment paradox," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 31-49.
    15. Rapoport, Amnon & Mak, Vincent & Zwick, Rami, 2006. "Navigating congested networks with variable demand: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 648-666, October.
    16. Pas, Eric I. & Principio, Shari L., 1997. "Braess' paradox: Some new insights," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 265-276, June.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:eee:transb:v:13:y:1979:i:4:p:305-309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.