Criticism of generally accepted fundamentals and methodologies of traffic and transportation theory: A brief review

It is explained why the set of the fundamental empirical features of traffic breakdown (a transition from free flow to congested traffic) should be the empirical basis for any traffic and transportation theory that can be reliably used for control and optimization in traffic networks. It is shown that the generally accepted fundamentals and methodologies of the traffic and transportation theory are not consistent with the set of the fundamental empirical features of traffic breakdown at a highway bottleneck. To these fundamentals and methodologies of the traffic and transportation theory belong (i) Lighthill–Whitham–Richards (LWR) theory, (ii) the General Motors (GM) model class (for example, Herman, Gazis et al. GM model, Gipps’s model, Payne’s model, Newell’s optimal velocity (OV) model, Wiedemann’s model, Bando et al. OV model, Treiber’s IDM, Krauß’s model), (iii) the understanding of highway capacity as a particular (fixed or stochastic) value, and (iv) principles for traffic and transportation network optimization and control (for example, Wardrop’s user equilibrium (UE) and system optimum (SO) principles). Alternatively to these generally accepted fundamentals and methodologies of the traffic and transportation theory, we discuss the three-phase traffic theory as the basis for traffic flow modeling as well as briefly consider the network breakdown minimization (BM) principle for the optimization of traffic and transportation networks with road bottlenecks.