Pareto-Improving User Equilibrium Model Under Tradable Credit and Link Capacity Constraints

  • Juan ShaoEmail author
  • Chao Sun
  • Jian Rong
  • Lin Cheng
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 503)


This chapter presents a user equilibrium model under tradable credit and link capacity constraints (UE-CC) that explicitly considers the characteristics of congested roads in urban traffic network. This model hypothesizes that for each origin-destination (OD) pair no traveler can reduce his/her generalized travel cost by unilaterally changing paths. To obtain the total amount of credits, credit charges on each link and credit cost, this chapter extends the UE-CC model to a Pareto-improving user equilibrium model under tradable credit and link capacity constraints (PUE-CC). This new model uses minimization of system optimal travel time as the objective function and uses the nonlinear complementarity functions of route travel time, route credit cost and route congested delay as the constraints. A relaxation algorithm is developed to solve the PUE-CC model. Numerical examples illustrate the essential ideas of the PUE-CC model and the applicability of the designed solution algorithm.


Traffic congestion User equilibrium model Pareto-improving Tradable credit scheme Capacity constraints Relaxation algorithm 



This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51578150, No. 51378119), and the China Scholarship Council (CSC) Program.


  1. 1.
    Xu Z, Jiang H (2016) Evaluation system for the sustainable development of urban traffic and ecological environment based on support vector machine. J Comput Theor Nanosci 13(10):6978–6981MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sun C, Cheng L, Zhu S et al (2017) Multi-criteria user equilibrium model considering travel time, travel time reliability and distance. Transp Res Part D: Transp EnvironGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yang H, Wang X (2011) Managing network mobility with tradable credits. Transp Res Part B: Methodol 45(3):580–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bao Y, Gao Z, Xu M et al (2014) Tradable credit scheme for mobility management considering travelers’ loss aversion. Transp Res Part E: Logistics Transp Rev 68:138–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Han F, Cheng L (2017) Stochastic user equilibrium model with a tradable credit scheme and application in maximizing network reserve capacity. Eng Optim 49(4):549–564MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tian LJ, Yang H, Huang HJ (2013) Tradable credit schemes for managing bottleneck congestion and modal split with heterogeneous users. Transp Res Part E: Logistics Transp Rev 54:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nie YM, Yin Y (2013) Managing rush hour travel choices with tradable credit scheme. Transp Res Part B: Methodol 50:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fan W, Jiang X (2013) Tradable mobility permits in roadway capacity allocation: review and appraisal. Transp Policy 30:132–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grant-Muller S, Xu M (2014) The role of tradable credit schemes in road traffic congestion management. Transport Rev 34(2):128–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dogterom N, Ettema D, Dijst M (2017) Tradable credits for managing car travel: a review of empirical research and relevant behavioural approaches. Transport Rev 37(3):322–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Song Z, Yin Y, Lawphongpanich S (2009) Nonnegative Pareto-improving tolls with multiclass network equilibria. Transp Res Rec: J Transp Res Board 2091:70–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Song Z, Yin Y, Lawphongpanich S et al (2014) A Pareto-improving hybrid policy for transportation networks. J Adv Transp 48(3):272–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lawphongpanich S, Yin Y (2010) Solving the Pareto-improving toll problem via manifold suboptimization. Transp Res Part C: Emerg Technol 18(2):234–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu D, Yin Y, Lawphongpanich S (2011) Pareto-improving congestion pricing on multimodal transportation networks. Eur J Oper Res 210(3):660–669MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liu Y, Guo X, Yang H (2009) Pareto-improving and revenue-neutral congestion pricing schemes in two-mode traffic networks. Netnomics 10(1):123–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nie YM, Liu Y (2010) Existence of self-financing and Pareto-improving congestion pricing: impact of value of time distribution. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 44(1):39–51Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guo X, Yang H (2010) Pareto-improving congestion pricing and revenue refunding with multiple user classes. Transp Res Part B: Methodol 44(8):972–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guo X (2012) Pareto-improving congestion pricing and revenue refunding with elastic demandGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xiao F, Zhang HM (2014) Pareto-improving toll and subsidy scheme on transportation networks. EJTIR 14(1):46–65Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chu Z, Chen H, Cheng L et al (2016) Pareto-improving hybrid policy with multiclass network equilibria. Transportation Research Board 95th annual meetingGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Facchinei F, Pang JS (2007) Finite-dimensional variational inequalities and complementarity problems. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rosenthal E (2008) GAMS-A user’s guide. GAMS Development CorporationGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Traffic Engineering AssociationBeijingChina
  2. 2.School of TransportationSoutheast UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.NEXTRANS Center, Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  4. 4.College of Metropolitan TransportationBeijing University of TechnologyBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations