A Topological Method to Choose Optimal Solutions after Solving the Multi-criteria Urban Road Network Design Problem
The paper proposes and applies a method for systematically sorting and reducing the number of different possible solutions to a network design problem (NDP). This is achieved first by defining a topological similarity measurement and then by applying cluster analysis. The NDP can be derived from the scientific literature. In general, the method consists of some models and subsequent algorithms that generate different solutions (enumerative, branch and bound, genetic, expert panel, ...) and evaluate for each solution an objective function (with deterministic or stochastic network assignment and with elastic or inelastic demand). The NDP, mainly in urban areas, needs multi-criteria evaluation and in each case a large set of non-dominated solutions is generated. In this paper, in order to select solutions and identify latent optimal network layouts, cluster analysis is carried out. The methodology utilises a “cluster” formation in relation to the solution topology and a “best” (representative) solutions extraction in relation to the criteria values. It can be utilised after solving the existing multi-criteria NDP and in other network problems, where the best solutions (for global or local network layouts) are extracted (with respect to the network topology) from a large set. The method is applied in a test system and on different real networks in two Italian towns, in order to analyse the goodness of the solution algorithm and assess its possible application to different networks. Copyright Springer 2006
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 33 (2006)
Issue (Month): 4 (07)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/regional+science/journal/11116/PS2|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:transp:v:33:y:2006:i:4:p:347-370. 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: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
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.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 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.