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

admin2018-01-08  59
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、People first identified it in the 1920s.
B、It claims that more capacity brings about more efficiency.
C、A mathematician of a university in Seoul came up with it.
D、The Americans didn’t pay much attention to it in the first place.
答案D
解析 此题为细节分析题。根据第三段第一句：尽管布雷斯悖论根源于20世纪20年代的经济理论，早在20世纪60年代就出现了，然而这个理论却在汽车业发达的美国从没有得到足够重视。因此可排除A项，确定D选项为正确答案。第二段第一句提到德国某大学的科学家提出了这个悖论，排除C项；悖论指出，在一个网络中的所有移动实体都会理性地寻找最有效路径，在这种情况下如果增加系统容量，实际上会降低网络的整体效率，排除B项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://kaotiyun.com/show/bUBZ777K
0

考研英语一

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)