Spatial Interaction Network Flow Models

  • B. Dejon
Conference paper
Part of the Proceedings in Operations Research 7 book series (ORP, volume 1977)

Abstract

The gravity models (see e.g. Wilson (1), the single perhaps most important class of spatial interaction models, will be looked at in this paper as convex network flow models. The arc characteristics of gravity type flow networks are such that the equilibrium potentials can be calculated by solving Kirchhoff’s nodal equations of flow conservation. A standard iterative procedure for doing this — in Regional Science sometimes named after K.P. Furness (2) — will be shown to be a coordinate descent method for calculating the minimum of an appropriate convex function. In fact, it is what in network flow theory is called a dual method for calculating optimal flows. As such, it is easily recognized to be applicable to more general spatial interaction network flow models, as presented e.g. in Sections III and IV. In these more general cases one might speak of implicit Furness iteration as opposed to the explicit procedure in use for the classical gravity models (see Section III).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. (1).
    A.G. WILSON: Urban and Regional Models in Geography and Planning. J.Wiley & Sons 1974.Google Scholar
  2. (2).
    K.P. FURNESS: Trip forecasting. Paper presented at a seminar on the use of computers in traffic planning, London 1962 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  3. (3).
    M. IRI: Network Flow, Transportation and Scheduling. Academic Press 1969.Google Scholar
  4. (4).
    W.J. ZANGWILL: Nonlinear Programming, A Unified Approach. Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1967.Google Scholar
  5. (5).
    A.W. EVANS: Some properties of trip distribution methods. Transpn. Res. 4, 1970, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. (6).
    T.R. LAKSHMANAN, W.G. HANSEN: A retail market potential model. JAIP 31, 1965, 134–143.Google Scholar
  7. (7).
    D.L. HUFF: Definining and estimating a trading area. Journal of Marketing 28, 1964, 37–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. (8).
    G. KRAFT, M. WOHL: New directions for passenger demand analysis and forecasting. Transpn. Res. 1, 1967, 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. (9).
    R.E. QUANDT, W.J. BAUMOL: The demand for abstract transport modes: theory and measurement. Journal of Regional Science 6, 1966, 13–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. (10).
    M.L. MANHEIM, E.R. RUITER: DODOTRANS I.: A decision-oriented computer language for analysis of multimode transportation systems. Highway Research Record 314, Highway Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1970.Google Scholar
  11. (11).
    M.J. BECKMANN: Duality in transportation problems with flexible demand. in (13), pp. 15–21.Google Scholar
  12. (12).
    J.D. MURCHLAND: Gleichgewichtsverteilung des Verkehrs im Straßennetz. in (13), pp. 145–183.Google Scholar
  13. (13).
    R. HENN, H.P. KONZI, H. SCHUBERT (ed.): Methods of Operations Research VIII. Vlg. Anton Hain 1970.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Dejon
    • 1
  1. 1.ErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations