2. 考研
  3. Conventional traffic engineering assumes that given no increase in vehicles, more roads mean less congestion. So when planners i

Conventional traffic engineering assumes that given no increase in vehicles, more roads mean less congestion. So when planners i

admin2015-02-12  0
问题     Conventional traffic engineering assumes that given no increase in vehicles, more roads mean less congestion. So when planners in Seoul tore down a six-lane highway a few years ago and replaced it with a five-mile-long park, many transportation professionals were surprised to learn that the city’s traffic flow had actually improved, instead of worsening. It was like an inverse of Braess’s paradox.
    Mathematician Dietrich Braess of Ruhr University Bochum in Germany states that in a network in which all the moving entities rationally seek the most efficient route, adding extra capacity can actually reduce the network’s overall efficiency. The Seoul project inverts this dynamic: closing a highway—that is, reducing network capacity—improves the system’s effectiveness.
    Although Braess’s paradox was first identified in the 1960s and is rooted in 1920s economic theory, the concept never gained enough attention in the automobile-oriented U.S. But in the 21st century, economic and environmental problems are bringing new scrutiny to the idea that limiting spaces for cars may move more people more efficiently. A key to this counterintuitive approach to traffic design lies in manipulating the inherent self-interest of all drivers.
    A case in point is "The Price of Anarchy in Transportation Networks," published last September in Physical Review Letters by Michael Gastner, a computer scientist at the Santa Fe Institute, and his colleagues. Using hypothetical and real-world road networks, they explain that drivers seeking the shortest route to a given destination eventually reach what is known as the Nash equilibrium, in which no single driver can do any better by changing his or her strategy unilaterally. The problem is that the Nash equilibrium is less efficient than the equilibrium reached when drivers act unselfishly—that is, when they coordinate their movements to benefit the entire group.
    The "price of anarchy" is a measure of the inefficiency caused by selfish drivers. Analyzing a commute from Harvard Square to Boston Common, the researchers found that the price can be high—selfish drivers typically waste 30 percent more time than they would under "socially optimal" conditions.
    The solution hinges on Braess’s paradox, Gastner says. "Selfish drivers can be led to a better solution if you remove some of the network links, in part because closing roads makes it more difficult for individual drivers to choose the best(and most selfish)route."
Which of the following is true about the Braess paradox?
选项 A、A mathematician of a university in Seoul came up with it.
B、People first identified it in the 1920s.
C、The Americans didn’t pay much attention to it in the first place.
D、It claims that more capacity brings about more efficiency.
答案C
解析 属事实细节题。选项A犯了偷梁换柱的错误，第二段第一句提到德国某大学的科学家提出了这个悖论，故错误。选项B同样属于偷梁换柱，用第三段第一句中的两个时间迷惑考生，故错误。选项D属于曲解文意，其内容与此悖论的观点恰好相反，故错误。选项C可以从第三段第一句后半句中找到答案，故符合题意。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/3s74777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)