KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (2016) 20(3):1084-1098 Sustainable Urban Transportation System

Copyright ⓒ2016 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-016-1729-1 pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

A Review of Sustainable Network Design for Road Networks

Xiangdong Xu*, Anthony Chen**, and Chao Yang***
Received September 8, 2015/Accepted January 7, 2016

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

The Network Design Problem (NDP) is a strategical decision-making problem in planning, designing, and managing road
networks with the aim to make efficient use of limited resources for optimizing the road network performance. Sustainability
development is a major concern of various social-economic systems throughout the world. As a critical component of sustainable
development, transportation systems should be designed to make positive contributions to the economic, environmental, and social
sustainability of the served regions and communities. This requirement significantly uplifts the challenges on the modeling and the
analysis of NDP. In this paper, we provide a review on the sustainable road NDP. Specifically, an overview on the three dimensions of
sustainable development (i.e., economic, environmental, and social) is first provided, focusing on their representative performance
measures relevant to road NDP. Then, we review the existing studies with the classification system of economy and environment-
oriented sustainable NDP, economy and equity-oriented sustainable NDP, and three-dimensional sustainable NDP. Future research
directions are suggested for advancing the methodological advancement and practical applications of sustainable transportation NDP.
Keywords: Sustainability, transportation, network design problem, multi-objective, bi-level programming
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2),

Sustainability development is a major concern all over the
world, but it is not a new concept. It is typically defined as the
development that “meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs” according to the Brundtland Report (also entitled “Our
Common Future”) released by the United Nations World
Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 (Brundtland
Commission, 1987). Sustainable development is typically charac-
terized in terms of three dimensions: “economic, environmental,
and social” or “ecology, economy, and equity”. Generally, economic
sustainability guarantees the economic viability of actions for
meeting present needs and reserving resources for future generations.
Environmental sustainability is mainly concerned with the natural
environment and maintaining its diversity and productivity. Social
sustainability mainly concerns the concept of “needs”, particularly
the essential needs of the poor.
Transportation systems provide social and economic connections
in our daily life. However, the mobility is balanced against the
economic, environmental, and social costs imposed by the
system. Transportation systems are large contributors to Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) emissions. Increased quantities of motorized vehicles
in the future are expected to contribute greater amounts of
pollutants to the atmosphere (e.g., noise, carbon monoxide (CO),
Particulate Matter (PM), and other hazardous air pollutants). For
example, motorized vehicles in the United States contribute to
86% of CO emissions, 62% of NOx emissions, 12% of PM2.5
emissions, and 7% of SO2 emissions (Environmental Protection
Agency, 2008). The long-term negative impact of environmental
degradation is the inability to sustain human life. As a critical
component of sustainable development, transportation systems
should be designed to make positive contributions to the
economic, environmental, and social sustainability of the
served regions and communities. The importance of achieving
sustainability in transportation systems cannot be over emphasized.
To better achieve sustainable development in transportation, it is
critical to address how planners should design a transportation
system that not only enhances mobility and economic growth but
also minimizes environmental degradation and climate change
for both present and future generations.
To transform the above fundamental definition of sustainable
development into goals and objectives, a sustainable transportation
system should be able to meet the multifaceted increasing travel
demands derived from social and economic activities, to enhance
the environment and quality of life of humans, and to benefit all
people with heterogeneous social-economic characteristics.
Achieving a sustainable transportation system relies on the
ability to integrate multiple effective strategies (e.g., integrated

*Associate Professor, Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, China (E-mail: xiangdongxu@tongji.edu.cn)
**Professor, Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, China; Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-4110, USA (Corresponding Author, E-mail: anthony.chen@usu.edu)
***Professor, Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 201804, China (E-mail: tongjiyc@tongji.edu.cn)

− 1084 −
 A Review of Sustainable Network Design for Road Networks
land use-transportation development planning, improvement of
public transportation services and green (or non-motorized)
transportation infrastructures, implementation of advanced
technologies in transportation systems management and demand
management, environmental protection policies, etc.).
Various measurement, modeling, evaluation, and analysis
frameworks have been developed regarding the planning, design,
management, operation, and control strategies of a sustainable
transportation system from either the demand side or the supply
side or both. For example, Lopez and Monzon (2010) integrated
sustainability issues in strategic transportation planning by
developing a multi-criteria (i.e., the three dimensions of
sustainability) model for assessing transportation infrastructure
plans in a GIS-based computer framework. Kamga et al. (2012)
discussed the basic concepts of sustainability in transportation,
identified key parameters and existing deficiencies in transportation
systems, and suggested ways to achieve more sustainable
development. Yim et al. (2011) developed an optimization
model for the joint land use and transportation network design
problem with consideration of demand uncertainty. Szeto et al.
(2012) provided a comprehensive review on network equilibrium
modeling and optimization approaches to environmental
sustainability. Maheshwari et al. (2015) proposed a dynamic
model for planning sustainable transportation systems via a
system of nonlinear differential equations representing the
dynamics of three independent states (i.e., transportation,
activity, and environmental systems), and discussed a policy
scenario regarding investment in energy-efficient technologies
and its effects on the states.
Road Network Design Problem (NDP) is a strategic decision-
making problem in planning, designing and managing road
networks. It aims to make efficient use of the limited resources
(e.g., land use and monetary budget) for optimizing the performance
of transportation networks, while explicitly considering the
travelers’ behavioral responses (e.g., residential location choice,
mode choice, and route choice) to the design scheme. Due to its
theoretical value and practical significance, modeling, algorithm
development, and applications of NDP have been extensively
studied by engineers, mathematicians, operations researchers,
and planners in the past few decades. For a comprehensive
review on classical NDP studies, interested readers are directed
to Bell and Iida (1997), Boyce (1984), Current and Marsh
(1993), Friesz (1985), Magnanti and Wong (1984), and Yang and
Bell (1998). In the literature, the dominant objective of NDP
studies is to alleviate traffic congestion, e.g., minimize total
travel time, and maximize network reserve capacity (Yang and
Bell, 1998). They may fail to adequately consider the environmental
and social impacts of transportation systems as well as their
conflicting effects. The promotion of sustainable development
and sustainable transportation significantly uplifts the requirements
and challenges on the modeling and analysis of NDP.
In this paper, we provide a review on the sustainable road
network design problem, and propose some future research
suggestions that are believed to be able to significantly expand
Vol. 20, No. 4 / April 2016 − 1085 −
the methodological advancement and the practical applications
of sustainable transportation NDP. The remainder of this paper is
organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the
sustainability concept, focusing on the performance measures of
the three dimensions of sustainable development relevant to road
NDP. Section 3 reviews the bi-level programming modeling
framework of NDP and the existing studies on the sustainable
road NDP. Finally, Section 4 provides future research suggestions
on this topic.
2. Three Dimensions of Sustainable Development
Sustainable development has typically been characterized in
terms of three dimensions as shown in Fig. 1: “economic,
environmental and social” or “ecology, economy and equity”,
also coined as the “three-legged stool” of sustainability. A
sustainable transportation system should contribute to the
economic, environmental and social sustainability of the served
regions and communities. The increasing social and economic
connections require mobility increase of transportation systems.
However, the benefits of increased mobility need to be balanced
against the economic, environmental, and social costs imposed
by the system.
There are many performance measures under each of the three
dimensions of sustainable development (e.g., Litman, 2014). In
this review, only the typical performance measures relevant to
road NDP are considered. We should point out that the three
dimensions have overlaps. For example, all the economic costs
(e.g., wasting travelers' time and slowing the delivery of goods
and services), environmental costs (e.g., generating vehicular
emissions and noise, and worsening the air quality), and social
costs (e.g., negative impacts of vehicular pollutant on public
health, and equity issues) of traffic congestion can be converted
to monetary (economic) costs. In the interest of clarity, we
discuss these three dimensions individually. The economic
dimension of sustainability is only referred to as the congestion
cost.
2.1 Economic Dimension
2.1.1 Total Travel Time
Traffic congestion generates economic costs by wasting
Fig. 1. Three Dimensions of Sustainable Development (Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_development)
 Xiangdong Xu, Anthony Chen, and Chao Yang

travelers' time and slowing the delivery of goods and services.
Total Travel Time (TTT) is a widely used measure to quantify the
total economic cost or efficiency of the network. Mathematically, it
can be expressed as follows:
Total travel time = ∑ ta ⋅ va (1)
a∈ A
where A is the set of directed links on the network; ta and va are
(average) travel time and flow on link a. TTT is also the objective
function of the System Optimal (SO) traffic assignment model.
Chen et al. (2007) extended the TTT measure to consider
uncertainty and developed the alpha reliable network design
problem that minimizes the TTT budget required to satisfy the
TTT reliability constraint.
2.2.2 Economic Benefit
TTT is applicable for the fixed demand case. It is inappropriate
when considering demand elasticity (e.g., dependency of O-D
demand on O-D cost or level of service). In the elastic demand
case, we can use the net economic benefit or social welfare:
w
Economic benefit = ∑ ∫ q D–w1( ω ) dω – ∑ ta ⋅ va (2)
0
w∈W a∈A
where W is the set of O-D pairs; qw is the travel demand of O-D
pair w; D–w1 is the inverse demand function. The inverse demand
function can be regarded as an amount that a traveler is willing to
pay for his/her travel, or a benefit that he/she can obtain from this
In terms of network reserve capacity, Gao and Song (2002)
extended the concept to consider O-D pair-specific demand
multipliers, while Chootinan et al. (2005) and Chen et al. (2006)
further developed it as a reliability-based NDP for a road
network and a signal-controlled road network, respectively. Yang
et al. (2000) formulated the network capacity and level of service
problem by determining the maximum zonal trip generation
subject to combined distribution and assignment equilibrium
constraints. Chen and Kasikitwiwat (2011) and Chen et al.
(2013) further detailed the network capacity model of Yang et al.
(2000) as the ultimate and practical network capacity models in
assessing network capacity flexibility and network capacity
reliability, respectively.
Remark 1: Yang and Wang (2002) examined the level of
equivalence and effectiveness of optimizing total travel time and
network reserve capacity in continuous NDP. They found that
the level of equivalence of the two objectives varies with the
congestion level. When the congestion level is low, maximizing
network reserve capacity has the simultaneous effect of total
travel time minimization. When the congestion level is high,
maximizing network reserve capacity can only minimize the
total travel time to a certain extent.
Remark 2: Santos et al. (2010) developed the following
weighted link reserve capacity measure to quantify the network-
wide reserve capacity:
a

travel (Yang and Huang, 2005). With this interpretation, the ∑ ( C a – v a ) va L a ⁄ ∑ v a L a (6)
a∈ A a∈ A
economic benefit is the total user benefit minus the total social
where La is the length of link a; α is a weighting parameter. Note
cost.
that the denominator is the total vehicle miles traveled. Thus, this
measure is an aggregation of link reserve capacity Ca-va
2.1.3 Network Reserve Capacity
weighted by the relative proportion of vehicle miles traveled on
Alternatively, network reserve capacity can also be used to
this link. This weighing scheme implies that we pay more
quantify the economic sustainability. The concept of network
attention to the spare capacity on heavy-flow and long links. This
reserve capacity was originally proposed by Wong and Yang
measure is simple and easy to calculate. However, it only serves
(1997) for a signal-controlled road network. It was defined as the
as a proxy or a localized approximation of the network-wide
largest multiplier µ applied to the existing O-D demand matrix q
reserve capacity. In contrast, the network reserve capacity
that can be allocated to the network without violating a pre-
measure in Eq. (3) is a global or network-wide measure based on
specified Level of Service (LOS). Mathematically, finding network
an optimization-based approach that can explicitly determine the
reserve capacity multiplier µ can be formulated as:
maximum throughput while considering travelers’ route choice
max µ (3) responses to a change of travel demand.
s.t. va( µq ) ≤ θaCa, ∀a ∈ A (4)
2.2 Environmental Dimension
va( µq ) ⇐ user equilibrium (5) Environmental protection is another important concern in
transportation system decisions, especially when considering the
where θa is a parameter denoting the pre-specified LOS required
sustainability issue of transportation systems. The environmental
on link a; Ca is the capacity of link a; va(µq) is the flow on link a,
dimension mainly quantifies the impacts of vehicles-generated
which is obtained by solving the lower-lower User Equilibrium
pollutants (e.g., vehicular emissions and noise). In the literature,
(UE) assignment problem under a given µ. The largest value of µ
the focus has been devoted to the emission effect since it is the
indicates whether the network has reserve capacity or not: if µ < 1,
major part of the vehicular pollution contributing to the
the network is overloaded by 100(1-µ) percent of q; otherwise, it
environment deterioration. Szeto et al. (2012) recently provided
has a reserve (or spare) capacity amounting to 100(µ-1) percent
a comprehensive review on the existing emission models based
of q. Essentially it is equivalent to the maximum throughput of
on the classification of aggregated, static, and dynamic approaches.
the network max ∑ µqw = maxµ ⋅ ∑ qw ⇔ maxµ .
w∈W w∈W As for the indicators of transportation noise, Pronello and

− 1086 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 A Review of Sustainable Network Design for Road Networks
Camusso (2012) provided a review on both the general acoustic
ones and those used for specific transport modes.
It is well known that CO, hydrocarbons (HC), and NOx are the
main types of vehicular emission pollutants. Among different
types of vehicular emissions, CO is usually regarded as an
important indicator for the level of atmospheric pollution
generated by vehicular traffic (e.g., Alexopoulos et al., 1993; Yin
and Lawphongpanich, 2006; Nagurney et al., 2010; Chen et al.,
2011b; Chen and Yang, 2012; Wang et al., 2014a; Xu et al.,
2015). In addition, CO is the most critical pollutant among the
various types of vehicular emissions, and almost all CO
emissions in the air are emitted by vehicles. Furthermore, the
emission functions of other pollutants are similar to that of CO
(Li et al., 2012). The most widely used vehicular CO emission
function is as follows:
Total CO emission = ∑ ea( va ) ⋅ va
a∈A
where ea(va) denotes the amount of CO pollution from link a.
The following nonlinear macroscopic model of Alexopoulos et
al. (1993) is a representative functional form to estimate the link-
based vehicular CO emission.
0.7962 ⋅ L
ea ( va ) = 0.2038 ⋅ ta ( va ) ⋅ exp ⎛ -------------------------a⎞
⎝ t a ( va ) ⎠
where La, ta and ea are measured in kilometers, minutes and
grams per hour, respectively. For other types of pollutants (e.g.,
CO2 and NOx), researchers (e.g., Hizir, 2006) have developed
their total emission functions, which are similar to the above
form but with different parameters.
Note that Eq. (8) is a non-decreasing function of link flow as
long as the speed is lower than 75 km/h (Xu et al., 2015).
However, in reality, the emission functions may not be necessarily
non-decreasing. For example, Sugawara and Niemeier (2002)
proposed the following CO emission function, which is neither
increasing nor decreasing, neither convex nor concave. This
function was also used by Wang et al. (2014a) in the three-
dimensional sustainable road pricing model.
ea ( sa ( va ) ) = exp [ –0.05627 ( sa – 16 ) + 0.002187 ( sa – 16 ) ,
–5 3 –6
–7.609 ⋅ 10 ( sa – 16 ) + 1.225 ⋅ 10 ( sa – 16 ) + 1.837]La
where sa is the average speed on link a, which is a function of
link flow va according to link travel time function. sa and La are
measured in mile/h and mile, respectively.
2.3 Social Dimension
This section divides the social dimension into health impact
and equity issues.
2.3.1 Health Impact
Air quality deterioration caused by Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
and pollutants of vehicular emissions have a negative impact on
public health. Assessing this health impact is particularly important
to a successful acceptance and implementation of some
Vol. 20, No. 4 / April 2016
transportation policies and actions (e.g., congestion pricing and
traffic rationing) in order to justify their positive contributions to air
quality improvement and its subsequent public health. Wang et
al. (2014a) presented a two-step procedure to assess the negative
impact of vehicle emissions on health: estimate the pollutant
uptake by individuals on each used path, and assess the health
impact based on population exposure level. For the first step
(modeling the pollutant uptake by individuals during their trip),
one can adopt a three-stage approach: (a) modeling link emission
rates based on traffic flow, average vehicle speed and vehicle
fleet composition, (b) modeling air pollutant concentrations from
the emission rates and surface meteorology, and (c) modeling
pollutant uptake by travelers from the air pollution concentrations,
travel time along each link, and breathing rate of travelers. Based
on the above three-stage approach, one can obtain the population
exposure level (e.g., total CO dose) on each used path. Then, we
(7) can apply the median or maximum operators to assess the health
impact of pollutant uptake on road users over different used
paths in the network.
2.3.2 Equity Issues
Various definitions of equity have been suggested in the
literature. It generally refers to the fairness and justice of the
(8) distribution of impacts (benefits and costs) of an action on two or
more units (Santos et al., 2008). In transportation planning,
equity mainly concerns the fairness of the right to access
transportation infrastructures for different groups of people.
Equity should be carefully assessed when planning, designing,
and managing transportation networks. Interested readers may
also refer to Levinson (2010) for a comprehensive review on the
equity effects of road pricing. According to the study subject of
equity issues, it can be classified into horizontal and vertical
equities, terminologies used in Szeto et al. (2012). Horizontal
equity involves the even distribution of the negative impacts of
traffic externalities (e.g., congestion and emissions) within the
same population group/class having the same abilities and needs
(e.g., social class, value of time, and income). Vertical equity
involves the even distribution of the negative impacts of traffic
2 externalities among various groups/classes of people. Equity has
(9) different specifications, e.g., spatial equity, environmental equity,
4
and intergeneration equity.
Spatial equity: In the NDP context, Meng and Yang (2002)
proposed a framework to study the spatial distribution impact of
the change in a general NDP and measured the spatial equity
impact by the maximum ratio of O-D travel times after and
before capacity enhancement:
Equity = ∑ { π w ( x ) ⁄ π w ( 0 ) } (10)
w∈W
where πw(x) and πw(0) are the minimum travel times of O-D pair
w after and before implementing network design scheme x,
respectively.
In a more general sense, there are various equity measures in
the literature, as summarized in Table 1. Note that these measures
− 1087 −
 Xiangdong Xu, Anthony Chen, and Chao Yang

Table 1. A Summary of Equity Measures (modified based on Ramjerdi is disproportionately and adversely impacted. They proposed
(2006) and Feng and Zhang (2014)) four objective functions according to the various interpretations
Equity measure Formulation of EJ.
Range Ymax−Ymin w w w w w w w w 2
⎛ ∑ sx q p ⁄ ex ∑ sx q ( 1 – p ) ⁄ ex ⎞
1
EJ1 = ⎜ ----------------------------- -⎟
n 2
Variance --- ∑ i = 1( Yi – Y) w
– -----------------------------------------
w
(11)
n ⎜ w w
q (1 – p ) ⎟
w w
⎝ w ∑ q p ∑ ⎠
w
1 n 2
Coefficient of Variation (CV) C = --- ∑ i = 1 ( Yi – Y) ⁄ Y
n w w w w w w w w 2
⎛ ∑ ( sx q p ⁄ e x – s 0 q p ⁄ e0 )
1 n
--- ∑ i = 1 Yi ⁄ Y – 1 EJ2 = ⎜ ----------------------------------------------------------------
w
-
Relative mean deviation ⎜ w w
n ⎝ ∑q p
w
(12)
1 n
--- ∑ i = 1 logY – logYi w w w w w w w w 2
Mean logarithmic deviation ∑ s q ( 1 – p ) ⁄ ex – s0 q ( 1 – p ) ⁄ e 0 ⎞
x
- ⎟⎟
n
– ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
w
w w
1 n 2 ∑ q ( 1 – p ) ⎠
Logarithmic variance --- ∑ i = 1( log ( Yi ⁄ Y) ) w
n
w w w w w w 2
1 n
--- ∑ i = 1( log ( Yi ⁄ Ylog ) )
2 ⎛ ∑ s x q p ∑ s x q ( 1 – p )⎞
Variance of logarithms
n EJ3 = ⎜ ---------------------
w w
-⎟
– --------------------------------- (13)
⎜ qw pw q (1 – p ) ⎟
w w

1- n n ⎝ w ∑ ∑ ⎠
Gini ---------- Y – Yj
2 ∑ i = 1∑ j = 1 i
w

2n Y
1 n
Theil’s entropy --- ∑ i = 1 ( Yi ⁄ Y)log ( Yi ⁄ Y)
n EJ4 = ⎜⎜ ------------------------------------------------
1⁄1–ε
1 n
1 – ⎛⎝ --- ∑ i = 1 ( Yi ⁄ Y) ⎞⎠
1–ε
( ε ≠ 1)
n w
Atkinson
⎛ 1 – exp ⎛ 1
---
n
log ( Yi ⁄ Y)⎞ ⎞ ( ε = 1 )
⎝ ⎝n∑ i = 1 ⎠⎠
1 1 n
Kolm ---log ⎛ --- ∑ i = 1 exp ( α ( Y – Yi ) )⎞
α ⎝n
Notation: Yi is a measure of welfare/accessibility; n is the number of
observations on welfare/accessibility; Y is the mean of Yi; Ylog is the
mean of logYi; ε and α in Atkinson and Kolm measures are positive
parameters of addressing inequity aversion.
are flexible in the sense that Y can have different specifications, e.g.,
welfare (net economic benefit) or accessibility. Also, to cater for
the case with multiple O-D pairs, O-D demands can be considered
in n and also as a weight of Y.
Environmental equity: Rilett and Benedek (1994) studied the
traffic assignment under environmental and equity objectives.
The expected exhibition of this traffic assignment problem is that
vehicles are routed through the network in such a way that no
one group of people living near the network is affected more than
any other groups of people. In other words, negative externalities
of traffic (e.g., the amount of emissions or noise released on all
streets or adjacent streets) are distributed as evenly as possible
among competing routes, and do not exceed a certain threshold
for health.
Environmental justice (Schweitzer and Valenzuela, 2004) is a
closely relevant concept with environmental equity. It can be
regarded as an extension of environmental equity but focusing
on minority and low-income population. Duthie and Waller
(2008) incorporated the Environmental Justice (EJ) consideration
into discrete NDP. EJ means that no protected population group
w w w w w w 2 w w w w w w 2 2
⎛ ∑ ( sx q p – s 0 q p ) ∑ ( sx q ( 1 – p ) – s0 q ( 1 – p ) ) ⎞
w
w w w w
-⎟
- – -------------------------------------------------------------------------
w
⎟
⎝ ∑ q p ∑q (1 – p ) ⎠
w w
(14)
w
where s and s are the shortest travel time of O-D pair w
0 x
without and with NDP scheme x; ew0 and ewx are the shortest
distance of O-D pair w without and with NDP scheme x; pw is the
proportion of trips between O-D pair w made by the protected
⎠ population. In general, these EJ measures quantify the distribution
of travel times amongst population groups.
Intergeneration equity: Sustainable development is the
development that can meet the needs of both the present and
future generations. Szeto and Lo (2006) examined the issue of
intergeneration equity according to the user and social
perspectives by using a time-dependent NDP framework of
planning the optimal infrastructure improvement timetable, the
associated financial arrangement, and tolling scheme over the
planning horizon. The social intergeneration equity was
measured by the total social surplus per capita discounted for the
time effect, representing the gross average net benefit of the
transportation infrastructure projects on society from generation
to generation. The user intergeneration equity was measured by
link tolls and discounted O-D travel costs. A gap function was
defined to measure the degree of intergeneration equity achieved
over generations.
Intergeneration Equity = ∑ Ni =–11∑ Nj = i + 1 wi – wj 2 (15)
where N is the number of design periods; wi and wj denote the
vector of equity measures (e.g., total discounted social surplus
per capita, link tolls, and discounted O-D travel costs) at periods i
and j. This gap function is always non-negative, and has a lower
value for more equitable schemes. Alternatively, Szeto et al.
(2015) used the sum of the variance of discounted generalized
user costs of all O-D pairs as a measure of intergeneration equity.

− 1088 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 A Review of Sustainable Network Design for Road Networks
3. Overview of Sustainable Road NDP
3.1 Modeling Framework of Network Design Problem
Road NDP involves the interaction of the two main decision-
making stakeholders: network planners and travelers. Travelers
selfishly make their travel choice decisions (e.g., mode/route
choice) according to their own criteria (e.g., shortest travel time,
lowest travel cost, etc.) and knowledge of the network state;
while planners aim to make efficient use of limited resources to
achieve the stated objectives/requirements. When evaluating a
network design scheme before implementation, planners need to
know how travelers respond to this scheme, i.e., the aggregation
of individual travelers’ travel decisions in terms of mode-specific
travel demand pattern and traffic flow pattern. Planners’ design
decisions can affect (but not directly determine) travelers’ travel
behaviors and the distribution of traffic flows, whose aggregation
will in turn influence planners’ design decisions. Hence, travelers’
response to a NDP scheme should be considered in the NDP.
With this consideration, the NDP decision-making process is
usually modeled as a bi-level programming (BLP) structure or a
non-corporative game between two players (planners as leaders
and travelers as followers).
Mathematically, the BLP can be expressed as follows:
lim F ( x, y( x ) )
[Upper level] min
x∈X
subject to G(x, y(x) ≤ 0
is a solution of the following optimization for an fixed
where y(x)
x∈X .
lim f ( x, y )
[Lower level] min
y∈Y
subject to g(x, y) ≤ 0
In the above formulation, x and y are decision vectors of the
upper-level and lower-level subprograms, respectively; X and Y
are the domains of x and y, respectively; F and G are the
objective(s) and the constraint set of the upper-level subprogram,
and f and g are the objective(s) and the constraint set of the
lower-level subprogram. The upper-level subprogram describes
the planners’ decision problem, and the lower-level subprogram
describes the travelers’ behavior problem. Note that the decision
vector y of the lower-level subprogram is a function of the design
vector x of the upper-level subprogram. Generally, there is no
explicit relationship between x and y. Therefore, BLP is usually
quite difficult to solve. Mathematically, it is generally nonlinear
and nonconvex.
Below we briefly summarize the four components of the NDP
as a BLP.
* Decision variables: According to the mathematical type of
decision variables, the NDP has three categories: continuous
NDP, discrete NDP, and mixed NDP. Generally, the continu-
ous NDP involves the parameterization of the network while
the discrete NDP involves the topology of the network. Due
to the continuity of decision variables, majority of NDP
studies in the literature belongs to the continuous NDP. The
examples of continuous decision variables include link
capacity enhancement, signal timing, ramp metering rate,
Vol. 20, No. 4 / April 2016 − 1089 −
link toll rate, etc. The examples of discrete decision vari-
ables include adding new roads/lanes, deleting existing links
(i.e., road closure), configuration of one-way streets and
contraflow lanes, etc. The mixed NDP is a combination of
continuous and discrete NDPs, e.g., cordon-based pricing,
adding new infrastructure and capacity expansion, simulta-
neous location-network design problem, etc. Nowadays
there are hardly any feasible sites for further expansion of
existing road networks, especially in large Asian cities. In
this case, the NDP needs to focus on how to make efficient
use of the existing network (instead of adding new roads or
expanding link capacity) while enhancing the network sus-
tainability. Signal timing, ramp metering, configuration of
one-way streets and contraflow lanes, and road pricing are
some of the available design schemes. These design schemes
have recently been considered with different dimensions of
sustainability, e.g., congestion/emission pricing (Maruyama
and Sumalee, 2007; Subprasom and Chen, 2007; Sumalee et
al., 2009; Ho and Sumalee, 2010; Friesz et al., 2013; Sharma
and Mishra, 2013; Wang et al., 2014a; Amirgholy et al., 2015;
Ma et al., 2015), dynamic traffic management measures (Wis-
mans et al., 2011), and signal timing (Li and Ge, 2014).
* Objectives: According to the NDP specification, the objec-
tive function could be total travel time minimization, net-
work reserve capacity maximization, total vehicular emission
minimization, etc. The NDP usually involves a benefit game
among different stakeholders. Each stakeholder has his/her
own requirement on the NDP decision, rendering it as a
multi-objective decision problem. Some of these objectives
are even conflicting. In other words, improving one objec-
tive may worsen one or more of the other objectives.
* Constraints: According to the NDP specification, the con-
straints could be link capacity constraint, environmental
capacity constraint, land use constraint, construction budget
constraint, network performance constraint, etc.
* Travel choice behaviors: In the lower-level subprogram,
typically we use traffic equilibrium assignment problem to
obtain the equilibrium traffic flow pattern under the plan-
ners’ specified NDP scheme. According to the travel choice
dimensions and choice criteria, the lower-level subprogram
could be deterministic UE (DUE), DUE with capacity con-
straints, DUE with elastic demand, Stochastic User Equilib-
rium (SUE), multi-class network equilibrium models, non-
additive traffic equilibrium models, combined travel demand
models, combined travel demand models with land use, net-
work equilibrium under uncertainty, etc.
Recently, there are two latest comprehensive reviews on
transportation NDP with different focuses.
* Chen et al. (2011a) focused on the uncertainty modeling in
transportation NDP and provided some new developments
on a bi-objective reliable NDP model that explicitly opti-
mizes the tradeoff between capacity reliability from the sup-
ply side and travel time reliability from the demand side.
* Farahani et al. (2013) focused on the Urban Transportation
 Xiangdong Xu, Anthony Chen, and Chao Yang

Network Design Problem (UTNDP) related to urban trans-
portation network topology and its configuration. Defini-
tions, general formulations and classifications of UTNDP
(including road NDP, transit NDP, transit NDP and fre-
quency setting problem, multi-modal NDP), solution meth-
ods, and applications in real-world case studies were
comprehensively reviewed.
3.2 Sustainable Road Network Design Problem
Note that the single economy-oriented NDP models and
algorithms have been widely studied in the literature, which will
not be reviewed in this section. Also, economic dimension is
typically considered in the environment-oriented or equity-oriented
NDPs. Hence, the studies reviewed in this section consider at
least two dimensions of sustainability. According to the dimensions
of sustainability considered in the NDP, we classify the existing
studies into three groups: economy & environment-oriented
sustainable NDP, economy & equity-oriented sustainable NDP,
and three-dimensional sustainable NDP. Below we summarize
selective studies in each group.

Table 2. A summary of Existing Studies on Economy & Environment-oriented Sustainable NDP (not reviewed in Szeto et al. (2012))
Sustainability Travelers’ behavioral
Reference Decision Sustainability measure Solution method
dimension model
· Total travel time
Sharma and Capacity · Economy · Total emissions (speed-dependent · Upper level: NSGA II
UE
Mathew (2011) expansion · Environment emission functions for various · Lower level: Frank-Wolfe
modes and pollutants)
· Total travel time · Multi-objective evolu-
Dynamic traffic · Economy
Wismans et al. · Total CO2 emissions tionary algorithms
management · Climate Dynamic UE
(2011) · Average weighted sound power (NSGAII, SPEA2 and
measures · Noise
level at source SPEA2+)
Chen and Yang · Economy · Total travel time
Toll and rebate UE /
(2012) · Environment · Total CO emissions
· Total travel time
Duell et al. Capacity · Economy · Total energy consumption (internal
UE NSGA II
(2013) enhancement · Environment combustion engine vehicles and
plug-in electric vehicles)
Dynamic UE (travel cost
Friesz et al. Dynamic · Economy · Total travel cost includes travel time, Quadratic penalty-based
(2013) congestion pricing · Environment · Total emissions early/late arrival penalty gradient projection
and toll)
· Total travel time
· Total energy consumption (internal
Gardner et al. Capacity · Economy combustion engine vehicles and
UE /
(2013) enhancement · Environment plug-in electric vehicles)
· Total emissions (CO2, VOC, SO2
and NOx)
Sharma and Mishra Emission · Economy · Total travel time UE/combined modal · Upper level: GA
(2013) pricing · Environment · Total system GHG emissions split-traffic assignment · Lower level: Frank-Wolfe
· Cost · Total construction cost · Upper level: GA based on
UE under each
Xu et al. Capacity · Safety · Total number of incidents random simulation and
realization of uncertain
(2013) enhancement · Efficiency · Total travel time fuzzy evaluation
travel demand
· Environment · Total CO emissions · Lower level: Frank-Wolfe
Capacity expansion,
· Consumer surplus and producer Penalty function method +
employment Scenario-based
· Economy surplus simulated annealing +
Li et al. (2014) development & stochastic location and
· Environment · Damage cost of total traffic emis- Gauss-Seidel decomposi-
residential develop- route choice equilibrium
sions tion
ment
· Upper level: Enhanced
· Total travel time
chemical reaction opti-
Szeto et al. Discrete capacity · Economy · Total emission cost (CO, VOC
UE mization (weighted objec-
(2014) addition · Environment and NOx)
tive)
· Total noise cost
· Lower level: Frank-Wolfe
· Upper level: Multi-
· Consumers' surplus Joint trip production-
attribute decision method
Amirgholy et al. CBD cordon · Efficiency · Total travel time distribution-mode
(Electre)
(2015) price · Environment · Total CO emissions choice-assignment
· Lower level: Diagonal-
· Migration level of retailers model
ization
· Total travel and waiting time Decomposed and solved
Dynamic emission · Economy
Ma et al. (2015) costs Dynamic UE as two separate subprob-
toll · Environment
· Total CO emissions lems
A modified NSGA-II; a
Miandoabchi et al. Both tactical and · Economy · Total travel time
UE multiobjective B-cell algo-
(2015) strategic decisions · Environment · Total CO emissions
rithm

− 1090 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 A Review of Sustainable Network Design for Road Networks
3.2.1 Economy & Environment-Oriented Sustainable NDP
Table 2 summarizes existing studies on the economy and
environment-oriented sustainable road NDP. Herein we highlight
the application/decision of the NDP, sustainability dimensions
considered and the corresponding performance measures, travelers’
behavioral model (i.e., lower-level model), and solution method.
We should point out that Szeto et al. (2012) also provided a
summary table on the bi-level transportation problem with
environmental considerations. To avoid repetition, Table 2 only
reviews the more recent studies that are not included in Szeto et
al. (2012) and adds more information on their lower-level
models and economy measures.
From Table 2, one can find that the decision problems of these
studies are quite diverse, including the traditional continuous
capacity enhancement and discrete capacity addition, dynamic
traffic management measures (signal control and variable
message sign for changing speed limit), toll and rebate, static and
dynamic congestion pricing, static and dynamic emission pricing,
joint decision of capacity expansion, employment development and
residential development, and both tactical and strategic decisions
(sequence of link construction, expansion projects over a
predetermined planning horizon, configuration of street orientations,
and lane allocations for morning and evening peaks in each year
of planning horizon). As for the performance measures, TTT is
the most widely used one for the economy dimension. In
addition, more factors such as waiting time and early/late arrival
penalties are also considered based on TTT; consumer surplus
and producer surplus (i.e. total revenue from housing rents) have
also been considered as measures of economy dimension. For
the environmental dimension, the majority of these studies use
the total vehicular emission as the performance measure. Among
different types of emission pollutants, CO and CO2 receive the
most attention, while NOx, VOC and SO2 receive less consideration.
It is worth noting that noise and energy consumption (considering
both internal combustion engine vehicles and plug-in electric
vehicles) are receiving increasing attention. Other than the direct
calculation of total vehicular emissions/noise, their cost form has
been used in order to have a consistent scale or unit with other
considered dimensions. Most of these studies treat the problems
as deterministic, except for Xu et al. (2013) with planners’
subjective uncertainty regarding the linguistic setting of goals
and priority structure and the objective travel demand uncertainty
and Li et al. (2014) with uncertainty in future population. In
terms of the lower-level traveler’s behavioral model, the UE
principle is the modeling foundation along with more considerations
such as dynamics, uncertainty, multiple choice attributes (e.g.,
toll, early/late arrival penalties, etc.), and combined models. To
solve the NDP models with both economy and environmental
considerations, most of these studies adopt or enhance different
meta-heuristics to directly solve the multi-objective problems or
to solve the weighted-sum form/constrained-single-objective
form/goal-programming form. Some of these meta-heuristics
include Genetic Algorithm (GA), Simulated Annealing (SA),
Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) algorithm, Particle Swarm
Vol. 20, No. 4 / April 2016 − 1091 −
Optimization (PSO), Ant Colony Optimization (ACO), Chemical
Reaction Optimization (CRO), non-dominated sorting genetic
algorithm (NSGA-II), Strength Pareto Evolutionary Algorithm
(SPEA2), B-cell algorithm, interchange algorithm, and variable
neighborhood search algorithm. Besides the meta-heuristics,
some studies also use analytical approaches for the solution, e.g.,
quadratic penalty-based gradient projection, sensitivity-analysis
based method, generalized reduced gradient method, partial
linearization method, finite element & Newtonian-based algorithm,
derivative-free algorithms, relaxation and decomposition methods,
and multi-attribute decision method (Electre). Note that, other
than emission pricing, a marketable pollution permit system
(Nagurney et al., 1998; Nagurney, 2000) has also been proposed
to reduce vehicular pollution and to achieve environmental
quality standard.
3.2.2 Economy & Equity-Oriented Sustainable NDP
Table 3 summarizes existing studies on road NDPs with both
economy and equity considerations. The decision/application
problems of these studies are concentrated on the continuous
capacity enhancement and toll rate (majority), the discrete
capacity addition, the road level and cordon selection, and their
combinations of discrete and continuous counterparts. Different
from the domination of TTT in Table 2, social welfare is the
most widely used performance measure of economy dimension
in Table 3. The other performance measures are quite diverse,
including total travel time, total trip generations, profit of
private investors, aggregate accessibility to population
centers, network reserve capacity, etc. As to the performance
measure of equity dimension, most studies use the spatial
equity measure (i.e., the maximum change of generalized O-
D costs or link travel times or consumer surplus, for various
user classes with different values of time), or the Gini and Theil
indicators of user benefit/accessibility/user utility/expected
equivalent income. The other equity measures are accessibility
of a percentage (e.g., 20%) of centers with lower accessibility,
environmental justice (in terms of four measures on distribution of
travel times amongst population groups, or the Theil entropy of
environmental impact), intergeneration user/social equity, etc.
When considering uncertainty issues, these objectives are modeled
in the form of either expectation or chance constraint.
Similarly, the lower-level models are quite diverse, including
UE and its various extensions (e.g., elastic demand, multiple
classes with different Values of Time (VOTs), time-dependent,
continuum network, and multi-modal), Probit SUE, trip chain-
based equilibrium, and combined models. As to the solution
algorithm, both analytical and meta-heuristic algorithms
mentioned above have been adopted.
3.2.3 Three-Dimensional Sustainable NDP
Compared to the above two categories, there are very limited
NDP studies that simultaneously consider all three dimensions of
sustainability as shown in Table 4. One can see that these studies
have different design variables: capacity enhancement, toll,
 Xiangdong Xu, Anthony Chen, and Chao Yang

Table 3. A summary of existing studies on economy & equity-oriented sustainable NDP

Sustainability Travelers’ behavioral
Reference Decision Sustainability measure Solution method
dimension model
Meng and Yang Capacity · Economy · Total travel time Penalty function + sim-
UE
(2002) enhancement · Equity · Spatial equity ulated annealing
· Social welfare
· Economy · Maximum relative increase of general- Multiclass UE with
Yang and Zhang Penalty function + sim-
Toll · Spatial and ized O-D costs between all O-D pairs elastic demand and
(2002) ulated annealing
social equity for various user classes with different different VOTs
VOTs
· Upper level: simulation
· The expectation of total travel time UE under each realiza-
Chen and Yang Capacity · Economy based GA
· Spatial equity (expectation or chance tion of uncertain travel
(2004) enhancement · Equity · Lower level: gradient
constraint form) demand
projection
Connors et al. · Economy · Social welfare Sensitivity-analysis
Toll Probit SUE
(2005) · Equity · Theil equity constraint based method
Upper level: GA
Lee et al. Land-use · Economy · Total trip generations Combined trip distribu-
Lower level: convex
(2006) development · Equity · Spatial equity constraint tion/assignment UE
combination
· Total discounted social surplus
Capacity
Szeto and Lo · Economy · Gap function (in terms of intergenera- Time-dependent UE Generalized reduced
expansion and
(2006) · Equity tion user equity and social equity) con- with elastic demand gradient method
toll
straint
· Profit of private investors UE with elastic demand
Chen and Subprasom · Economy Simulation based
BOT link tolls · Social welfare under each realization of
(2007) · Equity multi-objective GA
· Gini coefficient uncertain travel demand
Maruyama and Cordon and area · Economy · Social welfare Trip chain-based equi- Partial linearization
Sumalee (2007) pricing · Equity · Gini coefficient of user benefit librium method
· Upper level: Selector-
· Economy · Four travel time-based measure
Duthie and Waller Discrete ecombinative GA
· Environmental · Four measures on distribution of travel UE
(2008) link addition · Lower level: Frank-
justice times amongst population groups
Wolfe
· Aggregate accessibility to population
centers Not applicable (long-
Santos et al. Road level · Economy · Three accessibility-based equity mea- term interurban road
/
(2008) decision · Equity sures: accessibility of a percentage of NDP, not modeled as
centers with lower accessibility, Gini BLP)
and Theil
· Weighted average accessibility Add plus interchange
Not applicable (long-
· Efficiency · Weighted reserve capacity algorithm; variable
Santos et al. Road level term interurban road
· Robustness · Accessibility to 20% of traffic genera- neighborhood search
(2009) decision NDP, not modeled as
· Equity tion centers with the lowest accessibili- algorithm; enhanced
BLP)
ties GA
· Social welfare improvement
Sumalee et al. Cordon congestion · Economy · Revenue generation Dynamic self-adaptive
SATURN model
(2009) pricing · Equity · Gini coefficient of net social welfare penalty GA; NSGA-II
improvement
Lo and Szeto Capacity · Economy · Total discounted consumer surplus Annual-based UE with Generalized reduced
(2009) expansion and toll · Equity · Spatial equity in consumer surplus elastic demand gradient method
· Economy · Social benefit
Cordon · Utility equity · Theil entropy for user utility Finite element method+
Ho and Sumalee
congestion · Environmen- · Theil entropy for environmental impact UE (continuum network) Newtonian-based algo-
(2010)
pricing tal justice · Logit based on utility that governs the rithm
· Acceptability acceptance
Wu et al. · Economy · Social benefit Derivative-free
Toll and credit Multimodal UE
(2012) · Equity · Gini index of expected equivalent income algorithms
· Equity Six accessibility-based equity indicators · Upper level: NSGA II
Feng and Zhang Capacity
· Construction (GINI, Theil, mean log deviation, rela- UE · Lower level: Frank-
(2014) enhancement
cost tive mean deviation, CV, and Atkinson) Wolfe
· Total travel time
· Spatial equity constraint in terms of UE with generalized
Wang et al. Capacity · Economy
link travel times travel cost (travel time Relaxation algorithm
(2014b) enhancement · Equity
· Spatial equity constraint in terms of O-D + credit charging)
travel costs

− 1092 − KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 A Review of Sustainable Network Design for Road Networks

Table 4. A Summary Of Existing Studies on Three-dimensional Sustainable NDP

Sustainability
Reference Decision Sustainability measure Travelers' behavioral model Solution method
dimension
· Economy · Total travel time ·Upper level: simulation based
Chen and Xu Capacity UE under each realization
· Environment · Total CO emissions genetic algorithm
(2012) enhancement of uncertain travel demand
· Equity · Spatial equity · Lower level: Frank-Wolfe
· Change in consumer surplus
Time-dependent land-use
· Total CO emissions · Upper level: artificial bee
transportation problem (time-
Toll and · Economy · Landowner inequity (variance of colony algorithm
Szeto et al. dependent Lowry-type con-
capacity · Environment discounted landowner profit) and · Lower level: method of
(2015) straints and time-dependent
enhancement · Society/equity intergeneration inequity (variance successive averages and
modal split/assignment con-
of discounted generalized user cost Frank-Wolfe
straints)
over time)
· Total number of car
ownership and trips
· Upper level: multi-objec-
· Distributional differences between
Feng and · Mobility tive genetic algorithm
Zonal car zonal accessibilities (Gini) Combined distribution
Timmermans · Equity (NSGA-II)
ownership · Environmental capacity constraints and assignment model
(2014) · Environment · Lower level: Frank-Wolfe +
(link emission is calculated as product
Hitchcock problem
of link length, flow and average speed -
dependent emission factors)
· Network reserve capacity
· Economy
Li and Ge · Total CO emissions (move +stop UE with vehicle delays at Penalty function + simulated
Signal timing · Environment
(2014) delay) signalized intersections annealing (weighted sum)
· Equity
· Spatial equity constraint
· Economy · Total travel time Time surplus maximization
Wang et al. · Upper level: NSGA-II
Road pricing · Environment · Total CO emissions bi-objective (time & toll)
(2014a) ·Lower level: quasi-Newton
· Health impact · Level of pollutant uptake UE
· Revenue - construction cost, total
Toll and · Economy · Upper level: simulated
Yin et al. travel cost
capacity · Environment UE annealing
(2014) · Total CO emissions
enhancement · Equity · Lower level: Frank-Wolfe
· Spatial equity
· Network reserve capacity (mean-
variance)
· Upper level: particle swarm
· Economy · Link emission chance constraint
Wang et al. Capacity Bi-modal reliability-based optimization
· Environment · Demand equity chance constraint (at
(2015) enhancement SUE · Lower level: method of
· Equity least a certain percentage of increase
successive averages
of allowable travel demands for all O-
D pairs)

zonal car ownership, or signal timing. Total travel time and
network reserve capacity are the main measures for the economy
dimension; total CO emission (but with different emission
functions as in Wang et al. (2014a)) is the main measure for the
environment dimension. As for the social dimension, the
performance measures include the maximum change of O-D
travel time representing spatial equity in Chen and Xu (2012), Li
and Ge (2014) and Yin et al. (2014), the variance of discounted
landowner profit representing landowner inequity and the
variance of discounted generalized user cost over time representing
intergeneration inequity in Szeto et al. (2015), the Gini coefficient
of zonal accessibilities representing spatial equity in Feng and
Timmermans (2014), the level of pollutant uptake representing
the negative health impacts in Wang et al. (2014a), and the
demand equity chance constraint (at least a certain percentage of
increase of allowable travel demands for all O-D pairs) in Wang
et al. (2015). To cater for different decision problems, the lower-
level subprogram has different specifications such as UE, bi-
objective UE, or combined models with different considerations.
Chen and Xu (2012) and Wang et al. (2015) explicitly model
demand uncertainty in the NDP with different modeling
philosophies: expected value goal programming (GP) model,
chance-constrained GP model, and dependent-chance GP model
in Chen and Xu (2012); mean-variance model of network
reserve capacity in Wang et al. (2015). Given the multi-objective
BLP structure, some studies treat the multiple objectives directly
by adopting a goal programming approach or converting the
multiple objectives to a weighed-sum single objective problem,
while other studies treat some objectives as constraints, and then
use different types of metaheuristic algorithms for determining
the solution.
4. Future Outlook
After reviewing the literature of sustainable road NDP, we
realize that there are some research gaps to be further addressed.
In this section, we propose future research suggestions and
directions that are believed to be able to significantly advance the
state-of-the-art and the state-of-practice of sustainable transportation
NDP. These future research suggestions and directions include
three main aspects: modeling realism, algorithm development,
and practical applications.

Vol. 20, No. 4 / April 2016 − 1093 −

 Xiangdong Xu, Anthony Chen, and Chao Yang
4.1 Modeling Realism
* Uncertainty issues: Uncertainty exists in almost all aspects
of our daily life, and transportation systems are no excep-
tion. Typical sources of uncertainty in transportation systems
include travel demand fluctuation, link capacity degradation,
travelers’ imperfect perception of network conditions, and
limited rationality of travelers’ choice behaviors. For exam-
ple, Ng and Lo (2013) modeled vehicular emissions by
introducing the conformity probability to capture the full
probabilistic behavior of vehicular emissions under capacity
and link flow uncertainties. The conformity probability was
defined as the probability of the maximum emission across
all links below a critical level. The stochastic dependencies
were modeled using copulas, which generalized other com-
mon dependence modeling techniques in transportation net-
work modeling. In addition, there are some unique uncertainties
associated with the sustainable transportation NDP. For
example, the impacts of budget uncertainty (e.g., due to eco-
nomic fluctuation) and long-term travel demand uncertainty
and differentiation (e.g., due to population aging and popula-
tion policy adjustment like in China) on the achievement
level of sustainability need to be carefully addressed. Other
than the objective uncertainties mentioned above, we also
need to account for planners’ subjective uncertainties. A
typical subjective uncertainty in the NDP decision is plan-
ners’ target specification on the sustainability performance
measures. The fuzzy goal programming approach of model-
ing both subjective (fuzzy variables to model linguistic set-
ting of goals and priority structure) and objective (random
variables to model travel demand uncertainty) uncertainties
simultaneously in the NDP developed by Xu et al. (2013)
could be extended to tackle this issue.
* Budget estimation problem: The budget estimation problem
(i.e., optimize the construction budget to satisfy a certain
performance requirement) can be considered as an inverse
problem of the traditional NDP (i.e., optimize the network
performance under a given budget). Relative to the tradi-
tional NDP, the network-wide budget estimation problem
received very limited attention in the literature (Yin and
Lawphongpanich, 2007; Yin et al., 2008), yet it has practical
significance. The budget estimation in the sustainable NDP
will be even more complicated. The challenge lies in the
complex performance functions of the environmental and
the social dimensions of sustainable transportation NDP,
which are being treated as constraints in the optimization of
network-wide budget estimation.
* Time dimension: Recall that sustainable development is the
development that can satisfy the needs of both the present
and future generations. Transportation infrastructure con-
struction is a long-term and high capital investment. Also,
for profit-driven investments, at the inchoate operating
stage, the infrastructure construction and operational costs
are not necessarily expected to be balanced annually. Hence,
it is critical to explicitly model the time dimension in the
− 1094 −
sustainable NDP. The research questions in the time-depen-
dent sustainable NDP include the developmental schedule
and financial arrangement over time (e.g., 20 to 30 years
with each generation ranges from 5 to 10 years), how much
to develop (e.g., all or incremental), who should pay for the
development, the intergeneration equity issue of the present
and future generations, etc.
* Competition and cooperation of different spatial levels: To
achieve a win-win situation in the sustainable transportation
NDP, it is necessary to explicitly analyze and regulate the
competition and cooperation among different management
authorities, different spatial regions/cities, and different
transportation infrastructures within a city/region (e.g., ele-
vated roads and surface streets; expressway, arterial and
local streets).
* Travelers’ behavior model with sustainability consideration:
With public awareness of sustainability, travelers gradually
pay more attention to the externality of traffic congestion.
Hence, it is necessary to capture their multifaceted concerns
(e.g., travel time, energy consumption cost, air quality,
safety, health, etc.) in the lower-level travel choice and net-
work equilibrium models of the sustainable NDP model.
This is particularly important in the bicycle network design
problem since route choice criteria for bicycles are signifi-
cantly different compared to those for motorized vehicles.
* Integration of three dimensions: Given the multi-objective
nature of the sustainable transportation NDP, it will be rea-
sonable to integrate and synthesize the three dimensions for
facilitating analysis and optimization. This integration is
particularly useful in developing a practically operable sus-
tainability index, and ranking the level of transportation net-
work sustainability among a set of cities or regions.
4.2 Algorithm Development
In general, the sustainable transportation NDP could be
formulated as a multi-objective BLP, where the multi-objective
captures the three dimensions of sustainability and the BLP
structure considers planners’ decision and travelers’ behavioral
response. Advanced techniques of solving multi-objective
programming and BLP problems could be adapted to solve the
sustainable transportation NDP model in large-scale networks.
For example,
* Linearization techniques (e.g., Wang and Lo, 2010; Luathep
et al., 2011; Liu and Wang, 2015) could be adopted to refor-
mulate the originally non-convex nonlinear BLP as a com-
putationally tractable mixed integer linear programming
(MILP) problem, whose solution possesses the desirable
property of global optimality.
* Alternatively, parallel computing techniques could be embed-
ded into the meta-heuristics (e.g., genetic algorithm, simu-
lated annealing, particle swarm optimization, etc.) for
enhancing the computational efficiency in large-scale net-
works. When applying the meta-heuristics, one of the com-
plexities is the handling of constraints (e.g., specialized
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 A Review of Sustainable Network Design for Road Networks
sustainability requirement and budget constraint). A gradi-
ent-based repair method proposed by Chootinan and Chen
(2006) could be adapted to systematically repair infeasible
solutions by using the gradient information derived from the
constraint set.
* The sustainable transportation NDP is essentially a multi-
objective optimization problem. Solving the multi-objective
optimization models directly requires generating a family of
optimal solutions known as the Pareto-optimal set (Chen et
al., 2006, 2010). However, planners only need a good/satis-
factory solution that meets the goals/targets of different
stakeholders in practical implementation. With this consid-
eration, it is meaningful to adopt the goal programming
(GP) approach (Chen and Xu, 2012; Xu et al., 2013; Yin et
al., 2014) for the solution. The GP approach is able to
explicitly consider the planners-defined goals and priority
structure among the multiple dimensions in the sustainable
transportation NDP decision-making process. It determines
a single good solution that can be readily used for imple-
mentation, while best satisfying the set of planners-specified
goals.
4.3 Practical Applications
* Well-prepared test networks, scenarios sets, and realistic
case studies using large-scale networks should be developed
for examining the practical applicability of the modeling
methodologies and solution techniques of sustainable trans-
portation NDP. For example, Steininger et al. (2007) ana-
lyzed the impacts of nationwide car road pricing schemes
with respect to economic, environmental, and social indica-
tors of sustainability and quantified the trade-offs among the
three dimensions under different charging principles and
revenue recycling options. They employed a computable
general equilibrium approach for the analysis and provided
detailed empirical analysis for the case of Austria.
* The sustainable transportation NDP should be expanded to
more decision-making domains. For example, it is straight-
forward to consider a multi-modal network with park-and-
ride for providing more solutions to the private car domi-
nated society. Also, the electric vehicle charging infrastruc-
ture (or battery swapping station) location problem could be
evaluated and optimized from the perspectives of efficiency,
environmental, social, and financial sustainability. A road
diet is an effective way to maximize the utility for cyclists
and to minimize the negative effect on motorists. Recently,
Sohn (2011) proposed a multi-objective BLP model for the
road diet NDP by minimizing the total travel time of both
cyclists and motorists, or by minimizing the automobile
share and the average travel time per unit distance for motor-
ists who keep using automobiles after the implementation of
a road diet. Mesbah et al. (2012) proposed a bi-level optimi-
zation to design a network of bike lines, where the upper
level considered the benefits of cyclists (total travel distance
on bike lanes) and car users (total travel time by car), and the
Vol. 20, No. 4 / April 2016 − 1095 −
lower level included a car demand assignment model and a
bike demand assignment model. Pternea et al. (2015) devel-
oped a model for the sustainable urban transit network
design problem by minimizing the operator, user, and envi-
ronmental costs. This model explicitly incorporated environ-
mental impacts, considered emission-free (electric) vehicles,
and introduced a direct route design approach with route
structure and directness control. The design variables included
route structures, frequencies and vehicle types (conven-
tional/ electric).
* Public education of sustainable transportation NDP should
be emphasized in order to receive more participation and
support in the decision-making process, and to enhance its
acceptability by the public. Emerging technologies could be
used herein. For example, a web-based GIS platform, simi-
lar to Transitmix for transit route design (www.transit-
mix.net), could be developed for the sustainable transportation
NDP. The public can visually design/edit the network
according to their own thinking and preference (e.g., a new
road, a new lane, a bus stop, a one-way street, a contraflow
lane, parking lots, and an electric vehicle charging station
near home) in the platform. Then, the platform will assess
the three-dimensional sustainability performance from the
perspectives of both users themselves and the network as a
whole. This information will also enhance the understanding
of the public on the system externality with respect to net-
work sustainability.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (51408433), the Chang Jiang Chair
Professorship Program sponsored by the Ministry of Education
in China, and the Program for Young Excellent Talents in Tongji
University.
References
Alexopoulos, A., Assimacopoulos, D., and Mitsoulis, E. (1993). “Model
for traffic emissions estimation.” Atmospheric Environment Part B,
Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 435-466, DOI: 10.1016/0957-1272(93)90020-7.
Amirgholy, M., Rezaeestakhruie, H., and Poorzahedy, H. (2015). “Multi-
objective cordon price design to control long run adverse traffic
effects in large urban areas.” Netnomics, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1-52,
DOI: 10.1007/s11066-015-9092-9.
Bell, M. G. H. and Iida, Y. (1997). Transportation network analysis, UK:
John Wiley and Sons.
Boyce, D. E. (1984). “Urban transportation network-equilibrium and
design models: Recent achievements and future prospects.”
Environment and Planning A, Vol. 16, No. 11, pp. 1445-1474, DOI:
10.1068/a161445.
Brundtland Commission (1987). Report of the world commission on
environment and development (http://www.un.org/documents/ga/
res/42/ares42-187.htm). United Nations.
Chen, A. and Yang, C. (2004). “Stochastic transportation network design
problem with spatial equity constraint.” Transportation Research
 Xiangdong Xu, Anthony Chen, and Chao Yang
Record, Vol. 1882, pp. 97-104, DOI: 10.3141/1882-12.
Chen, A., Chootinan, P., and Wong, S. C. (2006). “New reserve capacity
model of a signal-controlled road network.” Transportation Research
Record, Vol. 1964, pp. 35-41, DOI: 10.3141/1964-05.
Chen, A. and Kasikitwiwat, P. (2011). “Modeling network capacity
flexibility of transportation networks.” Transportation Research
Part A, Vol. 45, No. 2, pp. 105-117, DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2010.11.003.
Chen, A., Kasikitwiwat, P., and Yang, C. (2013). “Alternate capacity
reliability measures for transportation networks.” Journal of Advanced
Transportation, Vol. 47, No. 1, pp. 79-104, DOI: 10.1002/atr.216.
Chen, A., Kim, J., Lee, S., and Kim, Y. (2010). “Stochastic multi-objective
models for network design problem under demand uncertainty.” Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 1608-1619, DOI:
10.1016/j.eswa.2009.06.048.
Chen, A., Kim, J., Zhou, Z., and Chootinan, P. (2007). “Alpha reliable
network design problem.” Transportation Research Record, Vol.
2029, pp. 49-57, DOI: 10.3141/2029-06.
Chen, A. and Subprasom, K. (2007). “Analysis of regulation and policy
of private toll roads in a build-operate-transfer scheme under
demand uncertainty.” Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 41, No.
6, pp. 537-558, DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2006.11.009.
Chen, A., Subprasom, K., and Ji, Z. (2006). “A Simulation-based Multi-
objective Genetic Algorithm (SMOGA) for build-operate-transfer
network design problem.” Optimization and Engineering Journal,
Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 225-247, DOI: 10.1007/s11081-006-9970-y.
Chen, A. and Xu, X. (2012). “Goal programming approach to solving
network design problem with multiple objectives and demand
uncertainty.” Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.
4160-4170, DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2011.09.118.
Chen, A., Zhou, Z., Chootinan, P., Ryu, S., Yang, C., and Wong, S. C.
(2011a). “Transport network design problem under uncertainty: A
review and new developments.” Transport Reviews, Vol. 31, No. 6,
pp. 743-768, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2011.589539.
Chen, A., Zhou, Z., and Ryu, S. (2011b). “Modeling physical and
environmental side constraints in traffic equilibrium problem.”
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 5, No. 3,
pp. 172-197, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2010.488277.
Chen, L. and Yang, H. (2012). “Managing congestion and emissions in
road networks with tolls and rebates.” Transportation Research Part
B, Vol. 46, No. 8, pp. 933-948, DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2012.03.001.
Chootinan, P. and Chen, A. (2006). “Constraint handling in genetic
algorithms using a gradient-based repair method.” Computers &
Operations Research, Vol. 33, No. 8 pp. 2263-2281, DOI: 10.1016/
j.cor.2005.02.002.
Chootinan, P., Wong, S. C., and Chen, A. (2005). “A reliability-based
network design problem.” Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol.
39, No. 3, pp. 247-270, DOI: 10.1002/atr.5670390303.
Connors, R., Sumalee, A., and Watling, D. (2005). “Equitable network
design.” Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation
Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 1382-1397, DOI: 10.11175/easts.6.1382.
Current, J. and Marsh, M. (1993). “Multiobjective transportation network
design and routing problems: Taxonomy and annotation.” European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 65, No. 1, pp. 4-19, DOI:
10.1016/0377-2217(93)90140-I.
Duell, M., Gardner, L., and Waller, S. T. (2013). “Multi-objective traffic
network design accounting for plug-in electric vehicle energy
consumption.” Proceedings of the 92nd Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
Duthie, J. and Waller, S. T. (2008). “Incorporating environmental justice
measures into equilibrium-based network design.” Transportation
− 1096 −
Research Record, Vol. 2089, pp. 58-65, DOI: 10.3141/2089-08.
Environmental Protection Agency (2008). <http://www.epa.gov/air/
emissions/index.htm>.
Farahani, R. Z., Miandoabchi, E., Szeto, W. Y., and Rashidi, H. (2013).
“A review of urban transportation network design problems.”
European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 229, No. 2, pp.
281-302, DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.01.001.
Feng, T. and Timmermans, H. J. P. (2014). “Trade-offs between mobility
and equity maximization under environmental capacity constraints: A
case study of an integrated multi-objective model.” Transportation
Research Part C, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 267-279, DOI: 10.1016/
j.trc.2014.03.012.
Feng, T. and Zhang, J. (2014). “Multicriteria evaluation on accessibility-
based transportation equity in road network design problem.”
Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 48, No. 6, pp. 526-541,
DOI: 10.1002/atr.1202.
Friesz, T. L. (1985). “Transportation network equilibrium, design and
aggregation: Key developments and research opportunities.”
Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 19, Nos. 5-6, pp. 413-427,
DOI: 10.1016/0191-2607(85)90041-X.
Friesz, T. L., Han, K., Liu, H., and Yao, T. (2013). “Dynamic congestion
and tolls with mobile source emission.” Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 80, pp. 818-836, DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.
2013.05.044.
Gao, Z. Y. and Song, Y. F. (2002). “A reserve capacity model of optimal
signal control with user-equilibrium route choice.” Transportation
Research Part B, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 313-323, DOI: 10.1016/S0191-
2615(01)00005-4.
Gardner, L. M., Duell, M., and Waller, S. T. (2013). “A framework for
evaluating the role of electric vehicles in transportation network
infrastructure under travel demand variability.” Transportation Research
Part A, Vol. 49, pp. 76-90, DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.031.
Hizir, A. E. (2006). Using emission functions in mathematical programming
models for sustainable urban transportation: An application in
bilevel optimization, Master of Science Dissertation, Sabanci
University, Turkey.
Ho, H. W. and Sumalee, A. (2010). “Congestion pricing design with
environmental justice and utility-based equity.” Proceedings of the
89th Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington
D.C., USA.
Kamga, C., Levinson, H. S., and Yazici, M. A. (2012). “Sustainability in
transportation: Opportunities and challenges.” Proceedings of the
91st Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., USA.
Lee, D. H., Wu, L., and Meng, Q. (2006). “Equity based land-use and
transportation problem.” Journal of Advanced Transportation, Vol.
40, No. 1, pp. 75-93, DOI: 10.1002/atr.5670400105.
Levinson, D. (2010). “Equity effects of road pricing: A review.” Transport
Reviews, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 33-57, DOI: 10.1080/01441640903189304.
Li, Z. C. and Ge, X. (2014). “Traffic signal timing problems with
environmental and equity considerations.” Journal of Advanced
Transportation, Vol. 48, No. 8, pp. 1066-1086, DOI: 10.1002/
atr.1246.
Li, Z. C., Lam, W. H. K., Wong, S. C., and Sumalee, A. (2012).
“Environmentally sustainable toll design for congested road networks
with uncertain demand.” International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 127-155, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.
2011.570101
Li, Z. C., Li, Z. K., and Lam, W. H. K. (2014). “An integrated design of
sustainable land use and transportation system with uncertainty in
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 A Review of Sustainable Network Design for Road Networks
future population.” Transportmetrica A, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 160-185,
DOI: 10.1080/18128602.2012.725268.
Litman, T. (2014). Developing indicators for sustainable and livable
transport planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute.
Liu, H. and Wang, D. Z. W. (2015). “Global optimization method for
network design problem with stochastic user equilibrium.”
Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 72, pp. 20-39, DOI: 10.1016/
j.trb.2014.10.009.
Lo, H. and Szeto, W. Y. (2009). “Time-dependent transport network
design under cost-recovery.” Transportation Research Part B, Vol.
43, No. 1, pp. 142-158, DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2008.06.005.
Lopez, E. and Monzon, A. (2010). “Integration of sustainability issues
in strategic transportation planning: A multi-criteria model for the
assessment of transport infrastructure plans.” Computer-Aided Civil
and Infrastructure Engineering, Vol. 25, No. 6, pp. 440-451, DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-8667.2010.00652.x.
Luathep, P., Sumalee, A., Lam, W. H. K., Li, Z. C., and Lo, H. K. (2011).
“Global optimization method for mixed transportation network design
problem: A mixed integer linear programming approach.”
Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 808-827, DOI:
10.1016/j.trb.2011.02.002.
Ma, R., Ban, J., and Szeto, W. Y. (2015). “Emission modeling and pricing
in dynamic traffic networks.” Transportation Research Procedia,
Vol. 9, pp. 106-129, DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2015.07.007.
Magnanti, T. L. and Wong, R. T. (1984). “Network design and transportation
planning: Models and algorithms.” Transportation Science, Vol. 18,
No. 1, pp. 1-55, DOI: 10.1287/trsc.18.1.1.
Maheshwari, P., Kachroo, P., Paz, A., and Khaddar, R. (2015).
“Development of control models for the planning of sustainable
transportation systems.” Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 55,
pp. 474-485, DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2015.03.024.
Maruyama, T. and Sumalee, A. (2007). “Efficiency and equity comparisons
of cordon- and area-based road pricing schemes using a trip-chain
equilibrium model.” Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 41, No. 7,
pp. 655-671, DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2006.06.002.
Meng, Q. and Yang, H. (2002). “Benefit distribution and equity in road
network design.” Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 36, No. 1,
pp. 19-35, DOI: 10.1016/S0191-2615(00)00036-9.
Mesbah, M., Thompson, R., and Moridpour, S. (2012). “Bi-level
optimization approach to design of network of bike lanes.”
Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2284, pp. 21-28, DOI:
10.3141/2284-03.
Miandoabchi, E., Daneshzand, F., Farahani, R. Z., and Szeto, W. Y.
(2015). “Time-dependent discrete road network design with both
tactical and strategic decisions.” Journal of the Operational Research
Society, Vol. 66, No. 6, pp. 894-913, DOI: 10.1057/jors.2014.55.
Nagurney, A. (2000). “Alternative pollution permit systems for
transportation networks based on origin-destination pairs and paths.”
Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 37-58, DOI:
10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00023-1.
Nagurney, A., Qiang, Q., and Nagurney, L. S. (2010). “Environmental
impact assessment of transportation networks with degradable links
in an era of climate change.” International Journal of Sustainable
Transportation, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 154-171, DOI: 10.1080/
15568310802627328.
Nagurney, A., Ramanujam, P., and Dhanda, K. K. (1998).” A multimodal
traffic network equilibrium model with emission pollution permits:
Compliance versus noncompliance.” Transportation Research Part
D, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 349-374, DOI: 10.1016/S1361-9209(98)00016-9.
Ng, M. W. and Lo, H. K. (2013). “Regional air quality conformity in
Vol. 20, No. 4 / April 2016 − 1097 −
transportation networks with stochastic dependencies: A theoretical
copula-based model.” Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 13,
No. 4, pp. 373-397, DOI: 10.1007/s11067-013-9185-7.
Pronello, C. and Camusso, C. (2012). “A review of transport noise
indicators.” Transport Reviews, Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 599-628, DOI:
10.1080/01441647.2012.706332.
Pternea, M., Kepaptsoglou, K., and Karlaftis, M. G. (2015). “Sustainable
urban transit network design.” Transportation Research Part A, Vol.
77, pp. 276-291, DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.024.
Ramjerdi, F. (2006). “Equity measures and their performances in
transportation.” Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1983, pp. 67-
74, DOI: 10.3141/1983-10.
Rilett, L. R. and Benedek, C. M. (1994). “Traffic assignment under
environmental and equity objective.” Transportation Research
Record, Vol. 1443, pp. 92-99.
Santos, B. F., Antunes, A. P., and Miller, E. J. (2010). “Interurban road
network planning model with accessibility and robustness objectives.”
Transportation Planning and Technology, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 297-
313, DOI: 10.1080/03081061003732375.
Santos, B., Antunes, A., and Miller, E. (2008). “Integrating equity
objectives in a road network design model.” Transportation Research
Record, Vol. 2089, pp. 35-42, DOI: 10.3141/2089-05.
Santos, B., Antunes, A., and Miller, E. (2009). “A multiobjective approach
to long-term interurban multilevel road network planning.” Journal
of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 135, No. 9, pp. 640-649, DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000043.
Schweitzer, L. and Valenzuela, A. (2004). “Environmental Injustice and
Transportation: The Claims and the Evidence.” Journal of
Planning Literature, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 383-398, DOI: 10.1177/
0885412204262958.
Sharma, S. and Mathew, T. V. (2011). “Multiobjective network design
for emission and travel-time trade-off for a sustainable large urban
transportation network.” Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 520-538, DOI: 10.1068/b37018.
Sharma, S. and Mishra, S. (2013). “Intelligent transportation systems-
enabled optimal emission pricing models for reducing carbon
footprints in a bimodal network.” Journal of Intelligent Transportation
Systems, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 54-64, DOI: 10.1080/15472450.2012.
708618.
Sohn, K. (2011). “Multi-objective optimization of a road diet network
design.” Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 45, No. 6, pp. 499-
511, DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2011.03.005.
Steininger, K. W., Friedl, B., and Gebetsroither, B. (2007). “Sustainability
impacts of car road pricing: A computable general equilibrium
analysis for Austria.” Ecological Economics, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 59-
69, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.021.
Subprasom, K. and Chen, A. (2007). “Effects of regulation on highway
pricing and capacity choice of a build-operate-transfer scheme.”
ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol.
133, No. 1, pp. 64-71, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2007)
133:1(64).
Sugawara, S. and Niemeier, D. A. (2002). “How much can vehicle
emissions be reduced? Exploratory analysis of an upper boundary
using an emission-optimized trip assign.” Transportation Research
Record, Vol. 1815, pp. 29-37, DOI: 10.3141/1815-04.
Sumalee, A., Shepherd, S., and May, A. (2009). “Road user charging
design: Dealing with multi-objectives and constraints.” Transportation,
Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 167-186, DOI: 10.1007/s11116-009-9197-9.
Szeto, W. Y., Jaber, X., and Wong, S. C. (2012). “Road network
equilibrium approaches to environmental sustainability.” Transport
 Xiangdong Xu, Anthony Chen, and Chao Yang
Reviews, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 491-518, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.
2012.690000.
Szeto, W. Y., Jiang, Y., Wang, D. Z. W., and Sumalee, A. (2015). “A
sustainable road network design problem with land use transportation
interaction over time.” Networks and Spatial Economics, Vol. 15,
No. 3, pp. 791-822, DOI: 10.1007/s11067-013-9191-9.
Szeto, W. Y. and Lo, H. K. (2006). “Transportation network improvement
and tolling strategies: The issue of intergeneration equity.”
Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 227-243, DOI:
10.1016/j.tra.2005.06.004.
Szeto, W. Y., Wang, Y., and Wong, S. C. (2014). “The chemical reaction
optimization approach to solving the environmentally sustainable
network design problem.” Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure
Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 140-158, DOI: 10.1111/mice.12033.
Wang, D. Z. W. and Lo, H. K. (2010). “Global optimum of the linearized
network design problem with equilibrium flows.” Transportation
Research Part B, Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 482-492, DOI: 10.1016/
j.trb.2009.10.003.
Wang, G., Gao, Z., Xu, M., and Sun, H. (2014b). “Models and a
relaxation algorithm for continuous network design problem with a
tradable credit scheme and equity constraints.” Computers & Operations
Research, Vol. 41, pp. 252-261, DOI: 10.1016/j.cor.2012.11.010.
Wang, H., Lam, W. H. K., Zhang, X., and Shao, H. (2015). “Sustainable
transportation network design with stochastic demands and chance
constraints.” International Journal of Sustainable Transportation,
Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 126-144, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2012.740147.
Wang, J. Y. T., Ehrgott, M., Dirks, K. N., and Gupta, A. (2014a). “A
bilevel multi-objective road pricing model for economic, environmental
and health sustainability.” Transportation Research Procedia, Vol. 3,
pp. 393-402, DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.020.
Wismans, L., van Berkum, E. C., and Bliemer, M. C. J. (2011).
Comparison of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms for optimization
of externalities by using dynamic traffic management measures.”
Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2263, pp. 163-173, DOI:
10.3141/2263-18.
Wong, S. C. and Yang, H. (1997). “Reserve capacity of a signal-
controlled road network.” Transportation Research Part B, Vol. 31,
No. 5, pp. 397-402, DOI: 10.1016/S0191-2615(97)00002-7.
Wu, D., Yin, Y., Lawphongpanich, S., and Yang, H. (2012). “Design of
more equitable congestion pricing and tradable credit schemes for
multimodal transportation networks.” Transportation Research Part
B, Vol. 46, No. 9, pp. 1273-1287, DOI: 10.1016/j.trb.2012.05.004.
Xu, X., Chen, A., and Cheng, L. (2013). “Stochastic network design
− 1098 −
problem with fuzzy goals.” Transportation Research Record, Vol.
2399, pp. 23-33, DOI: 10.3141/2399-03.
Xu, X., Chen, A., and Cheng, L. (2015). “Reformulating environmentally
constrained traffic equilibrium via a smooth gap function.”
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Vol. 9, No. 6,
pp. 419-430, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2013.777261.
Yang, H. and Bell, M. G. H. (1998). “Models and algorithms for road
network design: A review and some new developments.”
Transport Reviews, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 257-278, DOI: 10.1080/
01441649808717016.
Yang, H., Bell, M. G. H., and Meng, Q. (2000). “Modeling the capacity
and level of service of urban transportation networks.” Transportation
Research Part B, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp. 255-275, DOI: 10.1016/S0191-
2615(99)00024-7.
Yang, H. and Huang, H. J. (2005). Mathematical and economic theory
of road pricing, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Yang, H. and Wang, J. Y. T. (2002). “Travel time minimization versus
reserve capacity maximization in the network design problem.”
Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1783, pp. 17-26, DOI:
10.3141/1783-03.
Yang, H. and Zhang, X. (2002). “Multiclass network toll design
problem with social and spatial equity constraints.” Journal of
Transportation Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 5, pp. 420-428, DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2002)128:5(420).
Yim, K., Wong, S. C., Chen, A., Wong, C. K., and Lam, W. H. K.
(2011). “A reliability-based land use and transportation optimization
model.” Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 351-
362, DOI: 10.1016/j.trc.2010.05.019.
Yin, Y. and Lawphongpanich, S. (2006). “Internalizing emission externality
on road networks.” Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 11, No. 4,
pp. 292-301, DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2006.05.003.
Yin, Y. and Lawphongpanich, S. (2007). “Estimating highway investment
requirements with uncertain demands.” Transportation Research
Record, Vol. 1993, pp. 16-22, DOI: 10.3141/1993-03.
Yin, Y., Lawphongpanich, S., and Lou, Y. (2008). “Estimating investment
requirement for maintaining and improving highway systems.”
Transportation Research Part C, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 199-211, DOI:
10.1016/j.trc.2007.07.004.
Yin, Y., Li, Z. C., Lam, W. H. K., and Choi, K. (2014). “Sustainable toll
pricing and capacity investment in a congested road network: A goal
programming approach.” Journal of Transportation Engineering,
Vol. 140, No. 12, 04014062, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-
5436.0000720.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering