In class we have addressed the idea of Braess’ Paradox and how it applies to transportation networks–we showed that, in one example, the addition of a new road will actually throw off the original Nash Equilibrium, increase everyone’s travel time, and make all travelers worse off as a result.

This idea–that new paths and roads can be harmful rather than beneficial for transportation–seems to go against the American way of approaching traffic congestion. In most cases, the solution to traffic jams has been expansion and construction: more roads and more lanes are the only way we know how to deal with increasing traffic and travelers. But there is a sign that our country’s way of approaching this problem may be changing, and it came from President Bush’s recent budget proposal, of all places.

The following link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301159.html

is to a Washington Post editorial that outlines the Administration’s proposal regarding how American cities should begin to deal with traffic problems. The White House proposes following the example set by London, in which “drivers who enter a city center during peak driving hours must pay a fee to use the roads.” The system has worked quite well for London–in the zone controlled by the charges, traffic has decreased 30%, while average journey time for travelers has decreased by 14%.

This idea of congestion charging is sure to upset many Americans, who are already frustrated by tolls for things such as roads and tunnels that are common around many city centers. But the principles behind the proposal are sound: by creating real and explicit economic costs for travelers who wish to use these congested roads during rush hour, municipal governments will basically be toying with a large-scale economic network like the one we examined in class. These charges will change the Nash Equilibrium currently in place, and if American cities are able to duplicate the successes of London, average driving times and traffic will both decrease markedly.

On a related note, a controversy has been brewing in London regarding these charges–staff members of the U.S. and German embassies have been refusing to pay the fees, claiming diplomatic immunity! This link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/england/london/4352520.stm

describes in detail the reasoning behind both nations’ argument for not having to pay the charge, while also outline the British response to this affront.

In addition to being a funny story, this dispute also raises a serious question regarding busy roads and their costs, whether they be monetary or not: What happens if an individual, or a group of individuals, as in this case, chooses to ignore the costs altogether? What sort of effect will this have on the Nash equilibrium in the network? I ask these questions because the reaction of U.S. diplomats to this charge is, in my opinion, a harbinger of how the American people will respond to similar taxes in our major cities.