World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Downs–Thomson paradox

Article Id: WHEBN0006544326
Reproduction Date:

Title: Downs–Thomson paradox  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: European paradox, Service recovery paradox, Mayfield's paradox, Tullock paradox, Transport economics
Collection: Paradoxes, Road Transport, Transport Economics
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Publication
Date:
 

Downs–Thomson paradox

The Downs–Thomson paradox (named after Anthony Downs and J. M. Thomson), also known as the Pigou–Knight–Downs paradox (after Arthur Cecil Pigou and Frank Knight), states that the equilibrium speed of car traffic on a road network is determined by the average door-to-door speed of equivalent journeys taken by public transport. It is a paradox in that improvements in the road network will not improve traffic congestion. In fact, improvements in the road network can make congestion worse, if the improvements make public transport more inconvenient, or if it shifts investment, causing disinvestment in the public transport system.

Contents

  • Cause 1
  • Consequence 2
  • Restrictions on validity 3
  • See also 4
  • References 5

Cause

Consequence

The general conclusion, if the paradox applies, is that expanding a road system as a remedy to congestion is not only ineffective but often counterproductive. This is known as Lewis–Mogridge Position and was extensively documented by Martin Mogridge in the case-study of London on his book Travel in towns: jam yesterday, jam today and jam tomorrow?

A 1968 article by Dietrich Braess pointed out the existence of this counter-intuitive occurrence on networks: the Braess' paradox states that adding extra capacity to a network, when the moving entities selfishly choose their route, can in some cases reduce overall performance.

There is a recent interest in the study of this phenomenon since the same may happen in computer networks as well as traffic networks. Increasing the size of the network is characterized by behaviors of users similar to that of travelers on transportation networks, who act independently and in a decentralized manner in choosing optimal routes between origin and destination.

This is an extension of the induced demand theory and consistent with Downs (1992) theory of "triple convergence", formulated to explain the difficulty of removing peak-hour congestion from highways. In response to a capacity addition three immediate effects occur: drivers using alternative routes begin to use the expanded highway; those previously traveling at off-peak times (either immediately before or after the peak) shift to the peak (rescheduling behavior as defined previously); and public transport users shift to driving.

Restrictions on validity

According to Downs the link between average speeds on public transport and private transport "only applies to regions in which the vast majority of peak-hour commuting is done on rapid transit systems with separate rights of way. Central London is an example, since in 2001 around 85 percent of all morning peak-period commuters into that area used public transit (including 77 percent on separate rights of way) and only 11 percent used private cars. When peak-hour travel equilibrium has been reached between the subway system and the major commuting roads, then the travel time required for any given trip is roughly equal on both modes."

See also

References

  • On a Paradox of Traffic Planning, translated from the 1968 D. Braess paper from German to English by D. Braess, A. Nagurney, and T. Wakolbinger (2005), Transportation Science 39/4, 446–450.
  • Downs, Anthony, Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion, The Brookings Institution: Washington, DC. 1992. ISBN 0-8157-1923-X
  • Mogridge, Martin J.H. Travel in towns: jam yesterday, jam today and jam tomorrow? Macmillan Press: London, 1990. ISBN 0-333-53204-X
  • Thomson, J. M. (1972), Methods of traffic limitation in urban areas. Working Paper 3, Paris, OECD.
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
 
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
 
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.
 



Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.