FRIDAY 31 JULY 2026FRI 31 JUL 2026 · № 5
tell me something
Edition № 5
Paradoxnetworkscitiesstrangeness

Closing a road can make everyone's journey shorter

In a congested network where each traveller chooses the route that seems best, adding a link can increase everyone’s equilibrium travel time, and removing one can reduce it. The mathematical result is exact under its assumptions; real road removals are suggestive cases rather than controlled proofs.

Dietrich Braess demonstrated the effect in 1968. A new shortcut changes everyone’s incentives, and individually sensible rerouting can move the network to a worse equilibrium. The system optimum and the self-selected equilibrium are different objects. Cities including Seoul have removed major roads without the predicted traffic collapse, but such interventions also change transit, signals, land use and behaviour, so they do not isolate the paradox by themselves.

Why it matters

It is a clean example of individually rational choices creating a collectively worse result—and of subtraction being a legitimate systems intervention. More capacity is not automatically more usable capacity.

SECOND reading · How bad can selfishness get

It is bounded. For networks with linear congestion costs, the price of anarchy is at most 4/3: selfish routing is never worse than a third off the optimum. That bound is oddly reassuring and also the reason the paradox stays a curiosity rather than a crisis — it is real, it is not usually catastrophic.

THIRD reading · It is not only roads

The same structure appears in electrical grids, in packet networks, and — most vividly — in a mechanical demonstration where two springs and two ropes hold a weight, and cutting one of the ropes makes the weight rise. Nothing about the paradox is specific to traffic. It is a property of shared-cost networks with individual routing.

The counter-column · the strongest objection

Seoul was not a controlled experiment.

The expressway removal coincided with new bus rapid transit, changed signal timing and a large public campaign. The defensible claim is that removing major capacity did not produce the predicted collapse, which is still surprising, rather than that removal improved flow by itself.

What would change this

A well-instrumented removal with transit and pricing held constant, showing travel times rise as classical capacity models predict.

Footnotes · what supports it
Confidence — High on the theorem, moderate on field attribution
1
Original proof that adding a network link can worsen equilibrium performance.
2
Identifies candidate Braess links in real metropolitan road networks.
The theorem is uncontested. Identifying a real road as a Braess link requires a causal traffic model and cannot be inferred from one before-and-after story.
The side door

What in your work would get faster if you removed a path rather than adding one?

Return to today

A sealed edition.

Reading an old edition does not reopen today's door. The archive is a shelf, not a feed.