J Syst Sci Syst Eng (Dec 2012) 21(4): 385-402 ISSN: 1004-3756 (Paper) 1861-9576 (Online)

DOI: 10.1007/s11518-012-5200-7 CN11-2983/N

MODELING THE CONGESTION COST AND VEHICLE EMISSION

WITHIN MULTIMODAL TRAFFIC NETWORK UNDER THE CONDITION
OF EQUILIBRIUM

Bingfeng SI1 Ming ZHONG2 Xiaobao YANG1 Ziyou GAO1

1
MOE Key Laboratory for Urban Transportation Complex Systems Theory and Technology, Beijing Jiaotong
University, Beijing, China
bfsi@bjtu.edu.cn (), xbyang@bjtu.edu.cn, zygao@bjtu.edu.cn
2
Department of Civil Engineering, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, N.B. Canada
ming@unb.ca

Abstract
Traditional system optimization models for traffic network focus on the treatment of congestion,
which usually have an objective of minimizing the total travel time. However, the negative externality
of congestion, such as environment pollution, is neglected in most cases. Such models fall short in
taking Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and its impact on climate change into consideration. In this
paper, a social-cost based system optimization (SO) model is proposed for the multimodal traffic
network considering both traffic congestion and corresponding vehicle emission. Firstly, a variation
inequality model is developed to formulate the equilibrium problem for such network based on the
analysis of travelers’ combined choices. Secondly, the computational models of traffic congestion and
vehicle emission of whole multimodal network are proposed based on the equilibrium link-flows and
the corresponding travel times. A bi-level programming model, in which the social-cost based SO
model is treated as the upper-level problem and the combined equilibrium model is processed as the
lower-level problem, is then presented with its solution algorithm. Finally, the proposed models are
illustrated through a simple numerical example. The study results confirm and support the idea of
giving the priority to the development of urban public transport, which is an effective way to achieve a
sustainable urban transportation.
Keywords: Multimodal network, vehicle emission, system optimization, bi-level programming

1. Introduction significantly in most cities of China, especially

With the rapid development of her economy, in developed cities like Beijing and Shanghai. At
transport infrastructures have been improved the same time, resident’s travel patterns have

* This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 71071016, 71131001
and National Basic Research Program of China under Grant No. 2012CB725400. It is also partially supported by
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant Nos. 2012JBM056, 2012JBZ005.

 Systems Engineering Society of China & Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

 Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
386
been greatly changed. Table 1 gives the
distribution of the trip intensity and mode
choices of Beijing residents in 1986, 2000 and
2005 respectively (Mao et al. 2008). As can be
seen in Table 1, travel demand and average trip
distance in Beijing have been increasing
continuously. For example, total trips per day
per person have increased from 1.61 in 1986 to
2.84 in 2005 and the average trip distance has
increased to 9.3 km in 2005 from 8.0 km in 2000.
Traveling through automobile has experienced a
steady increase over the last 20 years, which is
strongly negatively correlated with a steady
decrease of the bicycle share, from more than
65% in 1986 to only 30% in 2005. Bus share
experienced a slight drop of 2.7% during the
same period, and subway takes 5.7% since 2005.
These statistics clearly show that a “green”
multimodal transportation system that can be
found everywhere in China in 1980s has been
shaped to be automobile-dependent.
In order to support economic development,
transportation policies in China have been
oriented to infrastructure development during
the past decades, and consequently road
development favoring private vehicles has been
a priority over public transport. However, the
increasing demand for motorized travel has
significantly outpaced the road development due
Table 1 Trip intensity and mode split characteristics of Beijing by year
Total trips Average trip Total daily
Year
/per/day Distance/km trip/millions
1986 1.61 - 9.39
2000 2.77 8.0 23.01
2005 2.84 9.3 29.20
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
to limited land and financial investment.
Moreover, such policies have shown their
drawbacks in developing a sustainable society.
Transport-related externalities like congestion
and air pollution have been increasingly
concerned. As an example, Table 2 shows the
increasing contribution of vehicle emission to
total air emissions in 1995, 1998 and 2000 in
Beijing (Liu et al. 2007). It can be seen that CO
emission increased about 7%, whereas NOx
emission increased almost 52%. These statistics
clearly show the significant threats from the
motorization to a sustainable society. In this
regard, innovative policies and corresponding
modeling tools are necessary to develop a
sustainable transportation system.
The main objective of transport management
agencies is to develop policies or measures to
achieve optimal system performance. Generally,
traffic equilibrium analysis and system
optimization are important aspects for such work.
The former relies on assignment models for
predicting travelers’ choice-behaviors through a
network. In the past decades, various
equilibrium models and algorithms (Beckmann
et al. 1956, Smith 1979, Dafermos 1980, Dial
1996) have been proposed, which purely base
themselves on motorized-traffic, which implies
that they only paid attention to the automobile
Mode split (%)
bus subway taxi car bicycle
29.31 0.36 5.24 65.09
27.33 9.03 23.96 39.68
26.60 5.70 7.60 29.80 30.30
Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
Table 2 Contribution of vehicle emissions to
Beijing air pollution (%)
Year CO NOx
1995 76.8 21.7
1998 82.7 40.2
2000 84 73
driver’s route choice, while traveler’s mode
choice was largely neglected. Several
assignment models for multimodal traffic
networks (Florian & Nguyen 1978, Fisk &
Boyce 1983, Abrahamsson & Lundqvist 1999,
Nagurney & Dong 2002, Yang & Huang 2004)
were proposed. However, in these existing
models, the vehicles of different modes, rather
than the travelers, were treated as demand units
and they were assigned to the network.
Nevertheless, in practice, the flow pattern over
an urban multimodal transport system is the
results of the travelers’ combined mode-route
choice, which should have congestion effect
been considered. Therefore, using traveler,
rather than vehicle as the demand entity for
network assignment should be more logic.
Further, the following two problems have not
been fully considered in the previous studies: (a)
the interactions between different transport
modes in mixed urban traffic environment; and
(b) the green transportation – bicycle, which is
most common mode in nearly every Chinese
city.
In addition, traditional general equilibrium
assignment models typically use travel time as
the generalized cost to assign traffic flows over a
network. Several researchers have investigated
traffic assignment methods based on
environment cost functions. For example, Tzeng
& Chen (1993) developed a multi-objective
traffic assignment model using a simplified
387
travel time function and a fixed CO emission
coefficient per link mileage. Rilett & Benedek
(1994, 1998) developed a simple macroscopic
CO emission model and used it in the
TRANSYT-7F software, in which the average
speed and the link length were used as input
variables. They investigated an equitable traffic
assignment with environmental costs. Nagurney
(2000) utilized a fixed amount of CO emission
rate per traveler per link to estimate the CO
emissions and developed a traffic network
equilibrium model incorporating an
environmental criterion. These previous studies
simply extended well-known travel time
function by adding link-based emission costs.
Traffic assignment procedure was improved by
considering environmental impact. However, a
rational traveler is typically interested in
selecting a combined mode/route choice that
minimizes the generalized cost for his/her trip,
while the negative societal externality cost like
environmental pollution is generally neglected.
These result from different perspectives, namely
user optimization and system optimization. This
raises questions concerning how to change the
traveler’s choice behaviors through traffic
management measures, such as fuel tax and
congestion pricing, to reduce the congestion and
improve air quality of the entire transportation
system.
Traditional system optimization models
focus on treatment of traffic congestion, which
usually has an objective of minimizing the total
travel time through traffic network (Sheffi 1985,
Bell & Iida 1997, Yang & Huang 2005). For
example, a number of regions have considered
alleviating traffic congestion by introducing
congestion pricing. The optimal road tolls for
 Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
388
minimization of total travel time can be easily
determined using optimization methods.
However, the negative externality of congestion,
such as environmental pollution, is neglected in
most cases. In the multimodal traffic network,
travelers from original to destination should
make two successive decisions. The first one is
the mode choice and the second is the route
choice. It is usually assumed that travelers
always try to select the mode-route with the
minimum travel cost consisting of congestion,
travel time and potential fees. However, the flow
pattern over such network resulted by all the
travelers’ combined mode-route choice based on
user equilibrium is not necessarily optimal to the
system as a whole. Therefore, the transport
management agencies can develop a reasonable
technologies or economic measures to guide the
travelers’ traffic-choice-behaviors and then lead
to change the equilibrium flow pattern over
network in order to achieve certain goal of
system optimization. If such target of system
optimization only consider the cost of traffic
congestion (i.e. the total travel time), regardless
of the external cost of vehicle emissions, the
optimal scheme may guide more travelers to
choose cars as their travel modes and result to
produce more air pollution from the transport
system, which will takes negative affects on the
lives of urban residents and urban economic
development. At present, there is a widespread
acceptance that incorporation of sustainable
issues within transport policies is crucial. Many
researchers (Yedla et al. 2005, Curtis 2008) used
different models to assess alternative measures
and also to develop policies for mitigating
pollution resulted from GHG emissions.
However, few of research works conducted
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
provides a complete system optimization
approach considering both congestion and
environment pollution simultaneously.
This study proposes a decision support
framework for transportation policy makers,
which simultaneously considers the objectives
of individual travelers and those of a multimodal
transportation system as a whole. Firstly, based
on the analysis of travelers’ combined choices
(in terms of their modes and routes), a
variational inequality (VI) model is proposed to
describe equilibrium assignment for multimodal
traffic network, in which the interferences
between different modes on the same road
segments are taken into account. Secondly, the
computational models of congestion and the
negative external cost of vehicle emission of the
whole network are proposed based on the
equilibrium flow pattern over such network. On
the basis of these, a bi-level programming model
is then proposed to describe this comprehensive
social-cost based system optimization problem
for the multimodal traffic network. The
associated solution algorithms are also presented.
Finally, the model and its algorithm are
illustrated through a simple numerical example.
2. Combined Equilibrium Model for
Multimodal Traffic Network
First of all, without losing any generality, it
is assumed that the O-D demands in a
multimodal traffic network are given and fixed.
For a given O-D pair, the sum of travel demands
of different modes equals to the total travel
demand, that is
 qwk  qw , w (1)
k
where qw is the total demand between O-D
Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
pair w; qwk is the demand that selects the
transport mode k between O-D pair w.
Secondly, for a given O-D pair and mode, the
sum of travel demands on different routes equals
to the travel demand of the corresponding mode,
that is
 hwk ,r  qwk , w, k
r
where hwk ,r is the travel demand on the route r
selected mode k between O-D pair w.
In addition, for the mode k between O-D pair
w, the travel demand on road link a can be
represented by the travel demand on the routes,
that is
xak  
 hwk ,r  ak,,rw ,
w r
where xak is the travel demand of mode k on the
road link a;  ak,,rw is route and road incidence
variable for mode k between O-D pair w, if the
mode k can access the road link a and it is on the
route r that connects the O-D pair w, then
 ak,,rw =1, otherwise,  ak,,rw =0.
In general, traffic flow is defined as the
number of all vehicles passing by a road section
during a time unit (minute or hour) for the
purely motorized system. However, in the
context of multimodal traffic network, the flow
of each mode can be converted from the
corresponding travel demand, that is (Si et al.,
2008)
U
vak = xak  ( k ) , k , a
Ak
where vak is the flow of mode k on road link a;
U k is passenger car unit (pcu) conversion
coefficient of mode k; Ak is occupancy rate of
mode k, which indicates the average number of
travelers within each vehicle of mode k.
389
In this paper, the internal congestion, travel
time and potential fare are all assumed included
in the generalized travel cost. The generalized
travel cost function for transport mode can then
be written as the following:
g wk (q w )   f wk (q w )   wk   wk , w, k (5)
(2) where g wk is the generalized travel cost for the
mode k between O-D pair w; q w is the vector
of travel demands between O-D pair w, that is,
q w = [q1w , , qwk ]; f wk (q w ) represents the
internal congestion for mode k between O-D
pair w, which is a function of the travel demand
between O-D pair w;  wk denotes the potential
fare of mode k between O-D pair w;  wk
denotes the equilibrium travel time of mode k
a, k (3)
between O-D pair w;  and  are
parameters.
Let gˆ wk (q w ) represent the travel cost
excluding travel time of mode k between O-D
pair w. That is
gˆ wk (q w )   f wk (q w )   wk , w, k (6)
Then, the function (5) can be rewritten as
g wk (q w )  gˆ wk (q w )   wk , w, k (7)
Further, we assume that the travel time in the
multimodal traffic network is additive. Thus, the
equilibrium travel time on route r for mode k
between the O-D pair w can be expressed as
 wk   tak  ak,,rw , w, k , r (8)
a
where tak denotes the equilibrium travel time of
(4) transport mode k on road link a, which can be
computed by the link impedance function.
In the multimodal traffic network, the
interferences among different modes will present
if there is no physical barrier between different
modes. Therefore, the link impedance function
for such system should be different from that for
 Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
390 J Syst Sci Syst Eng

single-mode transport system. The travel time is   qk  0

g wk  w , if w , w, k (11)
determined by not only the flow/capacity ratio   w qwk  0
of the mode being selected but also the flow of
  k hwk ,r  0
interference modes. The link impedance twk ,r  w , if k , w, k , r (12)
k
function in multimodal traffic network can be   w hw,r  0
formulated as: where  w is the generalized travel cost between
tak  f (tak (0) , v a , Ca ) , k , a (9) O-D pair w at equilibrium; twk ,r is the travel
where tak (0) is the free-flow travel time of mode time on route r for mode k between the O-D pair
w.
k on road link a; Ca is the practical capacity of
Note that the generalized travel cost
road link a; v a is the vehicle flow of different
functions and the link impedance functions
modes on road link a, that is v a  [v1a , , vak ] .
proposed in this paper are all asymmetric, which
In general, tak (0) and Ca can be assumed as the means that the generalized travel costs or the
constants and tak can be treated as a function of link travel times of each mode are influenced by
v a . According to the Equation (4), the flows of not only its own flow but also those from the
different modes on road link a can be expressed other competing modes. Dafermos (1980)
by the travel demand of corresponding modes. demonstrated that no equivalent optimization
Consequently, the Function (9) can be rewritten program can produce equilibrium flow pattern
as follows: for an asymmetric assignment problem and
tak  fˆak (x a ) , k , a (10) applied the variational inequality to the
asymmetric traffic assignment problem.
where x a is the vector of the travel demand on Therefore, in this paper, the following VI model
road link a, that is x a  [ x1a , , xak ] . is proposed to describe the equilibrium
In order to be consistent with choice assignment for multimodal traffic network: to
behavior theories, the user equilibrium defined find (x a , q w )   such that
in multimodal traffic network is divided into the
following two categories. One category   gˆ wk (q w )  (qwk  qwk )
w k
equilibrium exits among different transport (13a)
  fˆak (x a )  ( xak  xak )  0,
modes, namely the generalized travel costs of a k
the selected transport modes is the same and the where
minimum while the generalized travel costs of
  {(x a , q w ) |  qwk  qw ,
unselected transport modes must be not less than k
the minimum travel cost between a given O-D  hwk , r  qwk , xak   hwk ,r  ak,,rw , (13b)
pair. The other category is the traditional r w r

equilibrium among different routes for each qwk  0, hwk ,r  0, w, r , a, k}.
mode between the O-D pair. Therefore, the user The equivalence between the solution to
equilibrium in multimodal traffic network can be above VI model and the equilibrium conditions
described as: (11) and (12) is given by reference (Si et al.
Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
2012).
3. Social-Cost of Multimodal Traffic
Network
First, we consider the calculation of the cost
of traffic congestion. A general economic
definition of congestion is that it occurs when
the quality of service of a facility depends on the
intensity of use and the use approaches to the
facility’s capacity (Small & Verhoef 2007). For
urban traffic network, the most commonly used
indicator of quality is travel time or speed.
In general, traffic congestion is quantified
based on the total travel time of all travelers
using the transportation network (Sheffi 1985).
For a multimodal system, the total travel time at
equilibrium, represented by Z , can be
formulated as
Z    xak  tak . (14)
a k
Subsequently, let’s consider the computation
of the environment cost of motorized-transport.
The pollutants from vehicle emissions include
CO, NOx, HC, PM, SO2 and so on. Because it is
almost solely emitted by vehicles, some (e.g.,
Alexopoulos & Assimacopoulos 1993) consider
CO as an important indicator for the level of
atmospheric pollution generated by vehicular
traffics. There are a number of emission models
of various complexities, such as the VT-Micro
model, the CMEM model, and the MOBILE6
model (Ahn & Rakha 2008). The following
macroscopic model (Rilett & Benedek 1994)
that gives the relationship between the CO
production and the average vehicle speed is
adopted in this paper.
 k  exp( k  sak )
Rak  , k , a
k  sak
391
where Rak denote the CO emissions rate of
motor-mode k on link a (unit: gram/vehicle/km);
sak denotes the average speed of motor-mode k
on link a;  k ,  k , k are regression parameters
corresponding to motor-mode k.
In addition, the variable sak in Equation (15)
can be represented by the corresponding travel
time and distance, that is sak  La / tak , where
La denotes the distance of link a. Accordingly,
the total vehicle emissions under the condition
of user equilibrium can be rewritten as
  exp[ k  ( La / tak ]
R ak  k , k , a (16)
k  ( La / tak )
This equation is similar to the one proposed
by Yin & Lawphongpanich (2006).
The volume of vehicular CO emission is
equal to the product of the emission factor times
the link load (Anderson et al. 1996). Obviously,
the total vehicle emissions through the whole
multimodal traffic network at equilibrium can be
formulated as
x k
E    Aa  La  Rak . (17)
a k k
Based on above computations of congestion
and vehicle emissions through multimodal
traffic network, the social-cost based model
defined in this study can be formulated as:
C  Vt  Z  Ve  E . (18)
where C denotes the social-cost of multimodal
traffic network with certain travel demand; Vt
and Ve are the value of time (VOT) and the
social cost of vehicle emissions. It should be
noted, however, that the above model does not
consider the social cost resulted from collisions.
This will be addressed in an enhanced model in
(15)
a future study.
 Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
392
4. Social-Cost Based System
Optimization Model
The social-cost based optimal strategies for
multimodal traffic network can be represented as
a leader-follower game problem, where the
transport management agency is the decision
maker or the leader, and the travelers who can
freely choose mode and route are the followers.
Generally the transport management agency can
influence by policies such as the pricing of
transportation services, but cannot control the
travelers’ choice behaviors. The travelers make
their choosing in a user optimal manner. It is
reasonable to assume that the transport
management agency selects feasible strategy in
an attempt to optimize its objective. The
travelers, after and with enough information of
the multimodal network and the policies, make
mode-and-route decisions in an attempt to
minimize their generalized travel cost, resulting
in an equilibrium flow pattern over such
network. Bi-level programming is an available
method to find the optimal strategies while the
benefits of transport management agency and
travelers are considered simultaneously.
In the recent years, the bi-level programming
approach has emerged as an important area for
progress in handling complicated transportation
problems. Typical examples include network
performance optimization under the condition of
ATIS (Si et al. 2008) and revenue strategy of
railway passenger transport (Si et al. 2009).
Traditional optimization focuses on traffic
congestion only, which usually has an objective
of minimizing the total travel time through a
network. In this paper, we extend such an
objective to a comprehensive social-cost case,
which considers both the congestion and
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
environment pollution. The following bi-level
programming is proposed to describe such a
system optimization problem:
upper-level programming: min C x(λ ) (19)
where λ represents the policy variables such as
congestion tolls or transit fairs, x(λ ) is given
by the following lower-level VI model: to find
(x a , q w )   such that
  gˆ wk [q w (λ )]  {qwk  qwk (λ )}
w k
(20)
  fˆak [x a (λ )]  {xak  xak (λ )}  0.
a k
It can be shown that the optimization
objective in the upper optimization model,
including air pollution and traffic congestion
over the whole network, is related to link traffic
flows and the corresponding link travel times of
different transport modes, while the link traffic
flows and the corresponding travel times are
partially influenced by the policy variables λ .
The relationship between them is described by
the lower-level VI model with various
parameters. Accordingly, all optimization goals
in the upper optimization problem implicitly
depended on λ , that are described as C x(λ ) .
The policy variables λ can be interpreted as the
decision variables involved in such system
optimization problem.
5. Solution Algorithm
Due to the intrinsic complexity of model
formulation, the bi-level programming problem
has been recognized as one of the most difficult,
yet challenging problems for global optimality
in transportation system. In the past, researchers
(Abdulaal & LeBlanc 1979, Leblanc & Boyce
1986, Suwansirikul et al. 1987, Clegg et al. 2001,
Patriksson 2008) have developed alternative
Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
J Syst Sci Syst Eng 393

solution algorithms for this problem. Sensitivity algorithm. Step 1 solves a VI model, and a
analysis methods proposed by Tobin & Friesz simplified diagonalization method (Sheffi 1985)
(1988), which makes use of the derivatives of can be used as solution algorithm. This
the equilibrium link flows with respect to algorithm is based on a series of iterations to
perturbation parameters, are widely used for solve the optimization problem. Correspondingly,
network equilibrium problems (Friesz et al. at ith iteration, the optimization problem can be
1993, Yang & Yagar 1994, Chan & Lam 2002, described as
Si et al. 2009). By sensitivity analysis method, xak k
min F (x, q)    0 ta (x(i 1) )d 
( x ,q )
we can find the derivative of equilibrium flow of k a
(21)
each mode with respect to perturbation of the qwk
  0 g wk (q (i 1) )d 
cost function. In this paper, the perturbation is w k

assumed to be the potential fares of different
modes. With the derivative information, the
objective function of upper-level problem,
which is implicitly non-linear function of the
prices of transport services, can be linearly
approximated using Taylor’s formula. The
well-known simplex method can then be
adopted for solving the upper-level
programming problem. Therefore, the algorithm
used in this paper is summarized as follows:
Step 0: set the initial value λ (0) , and set the
number of iterations to i = 1.
Step 1: find the solution of the lower-level of
the model, x(i ) , which is the link flow matrix
for different modes.
Step 2: find the linear equation of the matrix,
x(λ (i 1) ) , through sensitivity analysis and
Taylor expansion.
Step 3: put the linear equation of the matrix
into the upper-level of the model to update the
parameter value of λ (i ) by solving upper-level
problem.
Step 4: examine the convergence. If
λ  λ (i1) or i = N, then iteration stops, where
i
In order to transfer the above combined
assignment problem into the logit model, the
functions g kw should be defined as follows (Si
et al. 2008).
1
g wk ( x)  ln x   wk , k , w (22)

The convex combinations algorithm (Sheffi
1985) can be used to solve the “diagonalized”
minimization problem (21), which is described
as the following:
Step 0: initialization. Set qwk =0 and xak =0
for any w, k and a. Compute gˆ wk (0) and tak (0) .
Find the shortest route for mode k between O-D
pair w and get the corresponding minimum
travel time  wk (0) . Then calculate the generalized
travel cost of mode k between O-D pair w.
Execute the travel demand assignment between
O-D pair w according to the following rules:
qw , if g wk (0)  min{g wl (0) }
qwk (1) =  lK (23)
0, otherwise
Subsequently, perform all-or-nothing
k (1)
assignment to load qw for mode k and obtain

N is the maximum number of iterations. the travel demand of mode k on road link a,
Otherwise, set i = i+1 and start a new iteration. xak (1) . Set iteration n=1.
Note that Step 1 is the key step of the above Step 1: compute gˆ wk ( n ) and tak ( n ) based on
 Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
394 J Syst Sci Syst Eng

qwk ( n ) and xak ( n ) respectively. of one O-D pair (1-9), 9 nodes, 12 links, two
Step 2: find the shortest route for mode k motorized modes (car and bus) and one
between O-D pair w and get the corresponding non-motorized mode (bike).
minimum travel time  wk ( n ) . Then calculate the Here, the following performance functions
generalized travel cost of mode k between O-D proposed by Si et al. (2008) are used to describe
pair w and execute the travel demand the link travel time within multimodal traffic
assignment between O-D pair w according to the network.
following rules: vamotor
tak  tak (0) [1   ( ) ]
qw , if g wk ( n )  min{g wl ( n ) } Camotor
k ( n)
uw   lK (24) (26)
0, otherwise xanon  motor 
[1   ( ) ], k , a
Canon  motor
Perform all-or-nothing assignment to load
uwk ( n ) for mode k and obtain yak ( n ) . xanon  motor
tanon  motor  tanon  motor(0) [1   ( ) ]
Step 3: compute Canon  motor
(27)
1 vamotor
qwk ( n 1)  qwk ( n )  (uwk ( n )  qwk ( n ) ) , w, k (25a) [1   ( 
) ], a
n Camotor
1
xak ( n 1)  xak ( n )  ( yak ( n )  xak ( n ) ) , k , a (25b) where tak and tanon  motor denote the travel
n
times of motor mode k and non-motor mode on
Step 4: convergence test. If a convergence
link a respectively; tak (0) and tanon  motor(0) are
criterion is met, stop. The current solutions,
the free-flow travel times of motor mode k and
{ qwk ( n 1) } and { xak ( n 1) }, are the sets of
non-motor mode on link a; Camotor and
equilibrium travel demands and link demands
Canon  motor are the practical capacities of motor
for the transport mode k respectively; otherwise,
and non-motor modes on link a; xanon  motor
set n=n+1 and go to step 1.
represents the non-motor flow on link a, which
is the same as the number of travelers who
6. Numerical Example
choose non-motor mode on link a; vamotor
A simple numerical example is used to
denotes the pcu (passenger car unit) flow of all
illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed
motor modes on link a; the parameters take the
models. The multimodal traffic network used in
values of  =0.15,  = 4,  =0.01 and  =2.
this study is shown in Figure 1, which consists

Figure 1 The simple multimodal network tested

Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
J Syst Sci Syst Eng 395

The parameters in CO emission model (16)
are given by  k =11.14,  k =0.05 and  k =3.28
(Anderson et al. 1996). The parameters in the
generalized travel cost function (5) take values
of  =1,  =0.2. The input data of different
links are presented in Table 3 and the data
pertinent to different traffic modes such as the
pcu conversion coefficient, the average
occupancy rate, potential user fee and so on are
listed in Table 4 (Si et al. 2008). For brevity, the
cases of q w =10000 and q w =20000 is used to
represent the low demand and high demand case
of the multimodal traffic network under study
respectively.
The convergence of the convex combinations
algorithm for the lower-level problem is
analyzed using the gap measure proposed by
Boyce et al. (2004). The gap at iteration n for
such combined assignment model can be defined
as
gap(n)   { tak ( n )  ( yak ( n )  xak ( n ) )
a k (28)
non-motor(n )
ta  ( yanon-motor(n )  xanon-motor(n ) )}
where yak ( n ) and yano  motor ( n ) are respectively
the auxiliary flows of mode k and no-motor on
link a at iteration n given by an all-or-nothing
assignment based on link travel time.
Figure 2 shows the gaps against the iteration
number for different O-D demands respectively.

Table 3 Data of different links

free-flow travel times/h practical capacities/pcu/h

links distance/km
car bus bike motor non-motor
(1,2) 0.111 0.178 0.261 1000 600 6
(2,3) 0.128 0.194 0.278 700 400 4
(1,4) 0.100 0.167 0.250 1500 800 8
(2,5) 0.106 0.172 0.256 700 400 4
(3,6) 0.089 0.156 0.239 700 400 4
(4,5) 0.078 0.144 0.228 1000 600 6
(5,6) 0.094 0.161 0.244 1000 600 6
(4,7) 0.133 0.200 0.283 900 500 5
(5,8) 0.111 0.178 0.261 700 400 4
(6,9) 0.144 0.211 0.294 700 400 4
(7,8) 0.094 0.161 0.244 900 500 5
(8,9) 0.100 0.167 0.250 900 500 5

Table 4 Data of different models

modes pcu coefficient average passengers potential fee/¥

Car 1 4 20
Bus 1.5 20 5
Bike
 Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
396 J Syst Sci Syst Eng

It can be seen that the solution algorithm has a and the potential fees of the motorized modes
good convergence especially for the cases with (car and bus) when q w =10000 and q w =20000
lower O-D demand. respectively. It can be seen that the car share will
In this example, the policies variables is reduce with the increase of related potential fee
assumed to be potential fees, such as congestion (congestion pricing) and it will increase with the
pricing or bus fare, that is λ  [ car , bus ]T . The increasing potential fee of bus (transit fare).
traffic authority can influence travelers’ choice Meanwhile, it can be found that, in the case
behaviors by adjusting potential fees of car or of the high demand and serious traffic
bus to reduce the social-cost of multimodal congestion, with increasing potential fee of bus
traffic network. Next we analyze the change of or car, the decline rates of the car shares are
mode shares with the policy variables λ . Figure lower than that in the case of the low demand.
3 shows the relationship between the car shares For example, under the conditions of q w =

8.00E+05

7.00E+05 high demand

low demand
6.00E+05

5.00E+05
gap value

4.00E+05

3.00E+05

2.00E+05

1.00E+05

0.00E+00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
iteration times

Figure 2 The convergence of the algorithm for the lower-level problem

0.8 0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
the car share
the car share

0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4

0.3 0.3
0.2
0.2 0
0.1
0 0.1 the 15
potential 0
20 30 0
0 fee of car/¥ 10
the potential fee of car/¥ 0 20
10 45 30
40 20 40
40 30 the potential fee of bus/¥
the potential fee of bus/¥

Figure 3 The changes of car share with λ under low demand (right) and high demand (left)
Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
10,000 and  car =  bus =0, the car share is 50%.
When the potential fees of car and bus are
increased to ¥45, the corresponding car share
will change to 42%. While the car share will
change from 57% to 58% in the case of
q w =20000. This can be explained as the
following: in the case of the low demand,
transport system still has a lot extra capacity and
accordingly the congestion within network is not
significant. The impact of travelers’ choice
behaviors on their travel time is not significant,
while relatively the travelers are more sensitive
to the fee increases. Therefore, travelers tend to
choose the bicycle, which is fee free, when the
potential fees of car and bus increase. On the
contrary, when traffic demand is high and road
capacity is tight, there is serious congestion in
the network. Under such a condition, the
impacts of travelers’ choice behaviors on their
travel time are relatively significant and
travelers are more sensitive to travel time.
Therefore, travelers prefer to choose the mode
with shorter travel time like car rather than
low-speed mode such as bike.
Subsequently, we analyze the changes of
congestion and emission of the whole network
by varying the policy variables λ. Figure 4
shows the relationship between the congestion
/emissions over the network when q w =10,000.
It can be seen that, in the case of the low
demand, the congestion is minimum when the
potential fees of car and bus are zeroes. As the
travel cost of car and bus increases, the
congestion will increase monotonically. The
results imply that the total travel time of the
entire network will be reduced by boosting the
high-speed mode shares (e.g., car and bus) when
the traffic demand is low. On the other hand, the
397
emission of the whole network will be
minimized when the potential fee of car is
maximized and the potential fee of bus is set
zero. Similarly, the network emission will
increase with the increase of the bus fee or the
decrease of the charge applied to car use. The
results imply that the total emission of the whole
network will be reduced by boosting the bus
shares or reducing the car share when the traffic
demand is low. Further, when the bus fee is set
zero, the congestion of whole network will be
slightly increased, while the emission of whole
network will be sharply reduced through the
increase of the potential fee applied to the cars.
For example, under the condition of M bus =0,
the total travel time of whole network will
increase from 8162h to 13263h with an average
increase of 62% when the potential fee of car is
increased from zero to ¥45, while the total
emission of whole network will decrease from
35324g to 5944g with an average decrease of
83%.
Similarly, Figure 5 shows the relationship
between the congestion/emission and the
potential fees for bus/car when the travel
demand is high q w =20000. It can be seen that,
in the case of the high demand, the congestion
will be minimized when the potential fee of car
is set as ¥15 and the potential fee of bus is set
zero. The congestion will increase
monotonically as the potential fee of bus
increases. The results imply that the total travel
time of the network will be reduced by boosting
the medium-speed and high-occupancy mode
share when the traffic demand is close or even
higher than the capacity. On the other hand, the
emission of the whole network will be
minimized when the potential fee of car is
 Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
398 J Syst Sci Syst Eng

maximized and the potential fee of bus is set
zero. The emission of network will increase as
the bus fee increases or the potential fee applied
to the cars decrease and will be maximized when
the potential fee of car is set zero and the
potential fee of bus is highest. Further, it is also
found that, when the car fee is set as ¥45, both
the congestion and the emission of whole
network will be significantly increased with the
increase of the bus fee. For example, under the
condition of M car =¥45, the total travel time of
the entire network will increase from 28,886h to
82,973h with an average increase of 187% when
the potential fee of bus increase from zero to
¥45, while the total emission of the network will
increase from 12,278g to 51,597g with an
average increase of 320%.
Based on the above example, it can be seen
that the potential fee of car is the main factor
affecting the social-cost of multimodal traffic
network. It can be concluded from the above
results that, when the traffic authority increases
the potential fee of car and consequently reduces
the mode share of the private car, it will reduce
the traffic congestion and vehicle emissions at
the network level. These observations clearly

Figure 4 The changes of congestion (left) and emissions (right) over network with λ under low demand

Figure 5 The changes of congestion (left) and emissions (right) over network with λ under high demand
Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
confirm and support the idea of giving the
priority to the development of urban public
transport, which is an effective way to achieve a
sustainable urban transportation.
7. Conclusions
At present, sustainability has become a
global development trend. In China,
transportation policies oriented to the
infrastructure development are no longer
sustainable. Traditional system optimization for
urban traffic network mostly focuses on the
treatment of traffic congestion, while the
environmental pollution is often overlooked. To
date, most transport models and algorithms have
been proposed to analyze the travel demand and
system optimization for purely motorized traffic
network. Few studies pay attention to such
problems for urban multimodal traffic network,
which can be found in most developing
countries. Moreover, none of the previous
studies provides a complete system optimization
approach, which considers both congestion and
environment cost simultaneously.
This paper attempts to use a bi-level
optimization method to describe transportation
system optimization problem under the
condition of the sustainable development. First,
the computational models of the congestion and
environmental cost of urban transport system are
proposed and a combined traffic assignment
model is also developed for simulating traveler’s
choice behaviors. On bases of these, a bi-level
programming is then presented to solve such
comprehensive social-cost system optimization
problem. Finally, the model and its solution
algorithm are illustrated through a numerical
example. The relationship between the
399
optimization objectives and traffic management
policies, such as congestion pricing and
emission control, are studied and presented. And
conclusions based on the study results are made.
It should be noted that this paper only
considers the social costs related to traffic
congestion and automobile emission. In practice,
there are extra goals and costs, such as
socioeconomic benefits, investment budget,
traffic accidents and equity, which should be
included in such an urban transportation
optimization problem, Therefore, more
advanced optimization model should be
researched and developed in the future.
Acknowledgements
Thank referees for their help to improve the
quality of this paper.
References
[1] Abdulaal, M. & LeBlanc, L.J. (1979).
Continuous equilibrium network design
models. Transportation Research-B, 13:
19-32
[2] Abrahamsson, T. & Lundqvist, L. (1999).
Formulation and estimation of combined
network equilibrium models with
applications to Stockholm. Transportation
Science, 33: 80-100
[3] Ahn, K. & Rakha, H. (2008). The effects of
route choice decisions on vehicle energy
consumption and emissions. Transportation
Research-D, 13: 151-167
[4] Alexopoulos, A. & Assimacopoulos, D.
(1993). Model for traffic emissions
estimation. Atmospheric Environment-B, 27:
435-466
[5] Anderson, W.P., Kanaroglou, P.S., Miller,
 Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
400
E.J. & Buliung, R.N. (1996). Simulating
automobile emissions in an integrated urban
model. Transportation Research Record,
1520: 71-80
[6] Beckmann, A.B., McGuire, C.B. & Winsten,
C.B. (1956). Studies in the economics of
transportation. Yale University Press, New
Haven, Connecticut
[7] Bell, M.G.H. & Iida, Y. (1997).
Transportation Network Analysis. John
Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester, England
[8] Benedek, C.M. & Rilett, L.R. (1998).
Equitable traffic assignment with
environmental cost functions. Journal of
Transportation Engineering, 124: 16-22
[9] Boyce, D., Ralevic-Dekic, B. & Bar-Gera,
H. (2004). Convergence of traffic
assignments: how much is enough? Journal
of Transportation Engineering, 130: 49-55
[10]Chan, K.S. & Lam, W.H.K. (2002). Optimal
speed detector density for the network with
travel time information. Transportation
Research-A, 36: 203-223
[11]Clegg, J., Smith, M., Xiang, Y.L. & Yarrow,
R. (2001). Bilevel programming applied to
optimizing urban transportation.
Transportation Research-B, 35: 41-70
[12]Curtis, C. (2008). Planning for sustainable
accessibility: the implementation challenge.
Transport Policy, 15: 104-112
[13]Dafermos, S.C. (1980). Traffic equilibrium
and variational inequalities. Transportation
Science, 14: 42-54
[14]Dial, R.B. (1996). Bicriterion traffic
assignment: basic theory and elementary
algorithms. Transportation Science, 30:
93-111
[15]Fisk, C.S. & Boyce, D.E. (1983).
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
Alternative variationa1 inequality
formulations of the network equilibrium
travel choice problem. Transportation
Science, 4: 454-463
[16]Florian, M. & Nguyen, S.A. (1978).
Combined trip distribution, model spilt and
trip assignment model. Transportation
Research, 12: 241-246
[17]Friesz, T.L., Anandalingham, A.N.J., Nam,
M.K.S., Shah, J. & Tobin, R.L. (1993). The
multiobjective equilibrium network design
problem revisited: a simulated annealing
approach. European Journal of Operational
Research, 65: 44-57
[18]Leblanc, L.J. & Boyce, D.E. (1986). A
bilevel programming algorithm for exact
solution of the network design problem with
user-optimal flows. Transportation
Research-B, 20: 159-265
[19]Liu, J.R., Wang, R.S. & Yang, J.X. (2007).
A scenario analysis of Beijing’s private
traffic patterns. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 15: 550-556
[20]Mao, B.H., Guo, J.F., Chen, J.C. & Jia, S.P.
(2008). Some historical comments on urban
transportation development of Beijing.
Journal of Transportation System
Engineering and Information Technology, 8:
6-13 (in Chinese)
[21]Nagurney, A. (2000). Congested urban
transportation networks and emission
paradoxes. Transportation Research-D, 5:
145-151
[22]Nagurney, A. & Dong, J.A. (2002).
Multiclass, multicriteria traffic network
equilibrium model with elastic demand.
Transportation Research-B, 36: 445-469
[23]Rilett, L.R. & Benedek, C.M. (1994).
Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
Traffic assignment under environmental and
equity objectives. Transportation Research
Record, 1443: 92-99
[24]Sheffi, Y. (1985). Urban Transportation
Networks: Equilibrium Analysis with
Mathematical Programming Methods.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
[25]Si, B.F., Zhong, M. & Gao, Z.Y. (2008).
System optimization model for traffic
network with ATIS. In: the 11th
International IEEE Conference on ITS:
888-893, Beijing, China, October 12-15,
2008
[26]Si, B.F., Zhong, M. & Gao, Z.Y. (2008).
Link resistance function of urban mixed
traffic network. Journal of Transportation
Systems Engineering and Information
Technology, 8: 68-73
[27]Si, B.F., Long, J.C. & Gao, Z.Y. (2008).
Optimization model and algorithm for
mixed traffic of urban road network with
flow interference. Science China-E, 51:
2223-2232
[28]Si, B.F., Zhong, M. & Gao, Z.Y. (2009).
Bi-level programming for evaluating
revenue strategy of railway passenger
transport under multi-mode market
competition. Transportation Research
Record, 2117: 1-6
[29]Si, B.F., Zhong, M., Gao, L. & Gao, Z.Y.
(2012). Hierarchical network based
equilibrium model and algorithm for
mixed-traffic urban transport system.
Journal of Transportation Planning and
Technology, 35: 545-559
[30]Small, K.A. & Verhoef, E.T. (2007). The
economics of urban transportation.
Routledge, 2 Park Square, Milton Park,
401
Abingdon
[31]Smith, M.J. (1979). The existence,
uniqueness and stability of traffic
equilibrium. Transportation Research-B, 13:
295-304
[32]Suwansirikul, C., Friesz, T.L. & Tobin, R.L.
(1987). Equilibrium decomposed
optimization: a heuristic for the continuous
equilibrium network design problem.
Transportation Science, 21: 254-263
[33]Patriksson, M. (2008). On the applicability
and solution of bilevel optimization models
in transportation science: a study on the
existence, stability and computation of
optimal solutions to stochastic mathematical
programs with equilibrium constraints.
Transportation Research-B, 42: 843-860
[34]Tobin, R.L. & Friesz, T.L. (1988).
Sensitivity analysis for equilibrium network
flow. Transportation Science, 22: 242-250
[35]Tzeng, G.H. & Chen, C.H. (1993).
Multi-objective decision-making for traffic
assignment. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 40: 180-187
[36]Yang, H. & Yagar, S. (1994). Traffic
assignment and traffic control in general
freeway-arterial corridor systems.
Transportation Research-B, 28: 463-486
[37]Yang, H. & Huang, H.J. (2004). The
Multi-class, multi-criteria traffic network
equilibrium and system optimum problem.
Transportation Research-B, 38: 1-15
[38]Yang, H. & Huang, H.J. (2005).
Mathematical and Economic Theory of
Road Pricing. Elsevier, Oxford
[39]Yedla, S., Shrestha, R.M. & Anandarajah, G.
(2005). Environmentally sustainable urban
transportation-comparative analysis of local
 Si et al.: Modeling the Congestion Cost and Vehicle Emission within Multimodal Traffic Network
402
emission mitigation strategies vis-à-vis
GHG mitigation strategies. Transport Policy,
12: 245-254
[40]Yin, Y.F. & Lawphongpanich, S. (2006).
Internalizing emission externality on road
networks. Transportation Research-D, 11:
292-301
Bingfeng Si is currently an associate professor
of Beijing Jiaotong University. He received his
PhD in 2001 from School of Traffic and
Transportation, Beijing Jiaotong University. He
has visited and worked at the Hong Kong
Polytechnic University, University of
Southampton, and other institutions. His areas of
research interests include assignment model of
urban traffic network, flow analysis for
multimodal traffic network and transportation
planning and management.
Ming Zhong is an associate professor of Civil
Engineering in University of New Brunswick.
He is professional engineer of the Association of
Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of
New Brunswick, associate member of Institute
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and member
of Canadian Society of Civil Engineering
J Syst Sci Syst Eng
(CSCE). His areas of research interests include
land use and transportation interaction modeling,
travel behavior analysis and travel demand
forecasting, traffic data programs/data mining
applications in traffic engineering, and so on.
Xiaobao Yang is currently an associate
professor of Beijing Jiaotong University. He
received his PhD in 2007 from School of
Economics and Management, Beihang
University (BUAA). His areas of research
interests include transportation planning and
management, mixed traffic flow model, and
system science.
Ziyou Gao is currently a full professor of
Beijing Jiaotong University, director of the
Institute of System Science. He received his
PhD in 1994 from the Institute of Applied
Mathematics, Chinese Academy of Sciences. He
has been on the editorial board of
Transportmetrica and Journal of Transportation
Systems Engineering and Information. His areas
of research interests include complex of
transportation system, network flow analysis and
optimization, and system science.