Losing Roads and Lights
I’ve clearly got traffic on the brain. This time in the form of an article from Scientific American about Braess’s Paradox. It explains, “The brainchild of mathematician Dietrich Braess of Ruhr University Bochum in Germany, the eponymous paradox unfolds as an abstraction: it 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.”
The article doesn’t stop there, though, it also mentions a phenomena similar to something I wrote about a few months ago, “Another kind of anarchy could actually speed travel as well–namely, a counterintuitive traffic design strategy known as shared streets. The practice encourages driver anarchy by removing traffic lights, street markings, and boundaries between the street and sidewalk. Studies conducted in northern Europe, where shared streets are common, point to improved safety and traffic flow. … The idea is that the absence of traffic regulation forces drivers to take more responsibility for their actions.”
Generally I love reading about this sort of stuff as it’s a nice intersection between design, psychology, culture and economics.

Hi, I'm 
It’s also a foundational element of progressive education, originally stemming, I believe, from Rousseau. (Didn’t bother to look this one up.) The idea here is that the absence of strict academic structures will encourage each child’s natural curiosity to pursue what interests them, thereby taking responsibility for their own learning.
I love this kind of counter-intuitive stuff. Reminds me of two other references:
1. Cyclists that wear helmets are “more likely to get knocked over by cars” because drivers are less cautious around them:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm
2. Eduard De Bono described a moment he banged his head on an overhead baggage compartment. A fellow passenger said: “those things are too low!” He disagreed, saying “actually they’re too high. If it was lower I would have seen it and not bumped into it”
That last one was a bit off-topic.. but you can see where I’m coming from..
Coffee!
I’ve seen a Dutch documentary on that village where they removed all traffic sign on a big intersection. Accidents have gone down dramatically indeed. But when they interview the inhabitants, they think it’s completely crazy and they hate it. Of course, that’s exactly why it works.
What’s going to be interesting is if this idea is going to be scaleable. Will it still work if all intersections are like this or will we end up driving the way they do in India, constantly on the horn? And can the public be convinced on agreeing to something that is “crazy” but apparently works?
As I sidenote, been having traffic on my mind too:
http://www.zeppelinrepair.com/?p=177
Just an initial thought (based of the post and comment 3) and it may be irrelevant, but could these theories explain why Facebook is eating Myspace’s lunch? Considering the types of restrictions both offer in terms of customization, i.e. less road regulations and angry citizens (Myspace) vs. more regulation and happy citizens (Facebook)… seems to link…