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

admin2018-01-08  8

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."
To make appropriate traffic networks, designers should take______into account.

选项 A、road capacity
B、economic effect
C、drivers’self-centeredness
D、environmental protection

答案C

解析 此题为细节推断题。根据第三段后两句:但在21世纪,经济和环境问题让人们重新审视这个理论,有限的行驶空间可能提高交通运输的效率。这种反直觉的交通设计的关键点在于操控所有司机固有的利己心。因此,可推断出,C选项应为本题的正确答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/EUBZ777K
0

最新回复(0)