alex cardazzi

For six months, Google Maps sent a slice of drivers in ten American cities down deliberately slower routes. About 30 seconds slower on average, and under 2% of trips were touched. The experiment ran on roughly 100 of the most congested road segments in each city, switching on and off day by day so each city acted as its own control. The results are out now in Nature Cities, from Google Research with collaborators at Berkeley and Stanford. The reasoning behind it is old and slightly counterintuitive. Every navigation app does the same thing: it finds you the fastest route right now, for you alone. When millions of phones do that at once they all pour onto the same handful of arteries, and those arteries stop being fast. Transport economists have been writing about the gap between what's good for one driver and what's good for the network since the 1950s. Nobody had tested a fix at city scale with real drivers, because you'd need to steer routing for a large share of a city's traffic, and about three companies on Earth are in that position. So Google put a penalty on the worst segments during their worst hours, which nudged the routing engine towards alternatives of similar road class and comparable travel time, then measured what happened across the whole network on weekdays between 7am and 8pm. On the targeted segments, traffic moved roughly 2% faster in the median city. Los Angeles got 4.56%, Atlanta 3.30%. Fuel burn on those stretches dropped between 0.5% and 1%. Across every road that saw a change in traffic, which covers around 80% of each city's driving, speeds rose 0.35%, reaching 0.5% during the morning and evening peaks. Total travel time on affected trips fell 0.69%. Their Bayesian model put the probability that the speed effect was genuinely positive at 99.8%. That adds up to more than 1,000 tonnes of CO2-equivalent saved per year, per city, in most of the places studied. Cars and vans account for around 10% of global carbon emissions, and the average driver spends about 2.6 years of their life behind the wheel, so a fraction of a percent across an entire road network is a serious amount of fuel. Per driver, the saving comes to about 0.25% of an average journey, roughly one fortieth of the normal day-to-day wobble in how long the same commute takes. Nobody in those ten cities noticed anything, in either direction, including the people sent the long way round. The authors are careful about what they haven't shown. They measured the immediate effect, not what happens once drivers work out the freed-up route is quicker and pile back onto it, which is the standard way road improvements get eaten. Their penalty scheme was deliberately crude, so the ceiling on the approach is unknown. And the underlying Google Maps data is commercially confidential, so nobody outside can check the numbers. The finding sitting underneath all this is that a private company's routing algorithm has become a piece of transport infrastructure, tunable in the way a traffic light or a congestion charge is tunable. The obvious follow-up experiments are the ones a city government would want to run, not the ones a mapping company would. link to full article: nature.com/articles/s44284-0…