Fewer Roads, Less Congestion?
A while back, the Christain Science Monitor ran a fascinating article on one of the most counterintuitive subjects in transportation policy: the so-called Braess Paradox. Stated simply, mathematician Dietrich Braess proved the unthinkable: sometimes, building a new road -- even a high-speed one -- can slow down traffic. (Here's the Wikipedia page on the issue, if you're curious. And note that Braess's discovery can apply to computer networks as well as roads.)
This is not actually a a paradox in the strictest sense. It's just one of those things that sounds completely implausible, but is nonetheless completely true. The converse is just as true: sometimes, you can speed up traffic by closing a road. The city of Seoul, Korea, for example, identified a high-capacity highway that had this strange property, and was actually gumming up traffic. The city pulled down the highway and -- almost like magic -- traffic eased a bit, even as the urban environment improved.
According to researchers, other cities could benefit from the same approach. The CSM article highlighted a brilliantly titled study -- "The Price of Anarchy in Transportation Networks" -- that discusses some real-world examples of cities that might benefit from following Seoul's example. Transportation geeks should take a few moments to check it out.
Special Series
Economic Turnaround
In a Series
Public Opinion: Smart Regulation is Good for Us
As Alan Durning recently pointed out, the concession by former Federal Reserve Board chair Alan Greenspan that an unregulated free market has failed Wall Street and Main Street alike signaled a significant turning point in fundamental political beliefs. Coming from Greenspan, the signal is more like an emergency flare -- or a bugle playing "Taps" at the funeral of market fundamentalism.Greenspan is not alone. Americans of all stripes -- including conservatives -- are singing a new tune about the role of government in making sure markets work for everybody.
A Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg national poll from earlier this month shows that nearly three-quarters of respondents think the lack of regulation was in large part or partly responsible for the current financial and housing crises.
Perhaps most significantly, the need for stronger regulation of financial markets was cited most consistently as the top issue for the US presidential candidates to address in the final stretch to Election Day -- topping the list for all ages and income brackets, even those whose income is above $60K and above $100K. And nearly half of those surveyed now think there is too little regulation of business.
