Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts”(lamag.com)
lamag.com
Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts”
https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/waze-los-angeles-neighborhoods/
310 comments
> The main difference between Waze and Google Maps is that Waze uses real time traffic data.
Google Maps has real time traffic data and the accuracy is staggering. I occasionally use Google Maps for navigation in the car and it even highlights traffic stationary at traffic lights and temporary road works as I’m approaching.
This level or real time detail really amazed me. I’ve not spent any time looking onto how they do it but assume they are continually tracking everyone with a phone, or at least running Google Maps Navigation, and using their real time location and speed.
Google Maps has real time traffic data and the accuracy is staggering. I occasionally use Google Maps for navigation in the car and it even highlights traffic stationary at traffic lights and temporary road works as I’m approaching.
This level or real time detail really amazed me. I’ve not spent any time looking onto how they do it but assume they are continually tracking everyone with a phone, or at least running Google Maps Navigation, and using their real time location and speed.
> Google Maps has real time traffic data and the accuracy is staggering.
But does Google Maps use real time traffic data to calculate the most optimal route in the same way as Waze does? As I understand, that's the main difference between the two.
But does Google Maps use real time traffic data to calculate the most optimal route in the same way as Waze does? As I understand, that's the main difference between the two.
Yes, they definitely both take traffic into account when calculating a route. My suspicion is that they're actually using the same raw data, but Waze is tuned to be more aggressive. Waze routinely guides me off a main road onto a side street to avoid two blocks of congestion for a net gain of maybe 1 minute, Google Maps doesn't.
In my experience this is very much true - in Sao Paulo, Waze is heavily used by everyone, and I mostly use Ubers and taxis while working here - and the agressiveness in which Waze will suggest a 5-more-turns, using local roads, to gain (maybe) one minute really sets them apart from Google Maps.
Google Maps' UI is tuned to show you alternatives and their ETA, and it's up to you to take them or not - Waze will just update routes without user input.
Google Maps' UI is tuned to show you alternatives and their ETA, and it's up to you to take them or not - Waze will just update routes without user input.
Waze aggressiveness is ridiculous. They don't factor in the time waiting in queue to turn left, the intersections you may have to cross causing delays, etc versus just staying the course on a main road. The only benefit are the minute savers that fall for the new route clearing up traffic for me to stay the course. In that way, Waze is great for me while making others take "shortcuts" that really aren't shortcuts.
Anecdotal, but there have been several cases where I've been using Google Maps and it pops up a message saying that it found a faster route. All of these cases have been because of accidents or extreme traffic, and all have been on the same route (94 East from Eau Claire, WI to Madison, WI). As far as I know, Google Maps doesn't route traffic through side streets to save seconds like Waze does - it seems to re-route you when there are major delays.
>But does Google Maps use real time traffic data to calculate the most optimal route in the same way as Waze does?
Anecdotally in the UK I see Google Maps routing based on live traffic data. I also often get a reassurance notification "you are on the fastest route despite traffic" (and it distinguishes between "traffic" and "usual traffic"). Occasionally I'll also get a recommendation pushed to switch to another route which is faster
Anecdotally in the UK I see Google Maps routing based on live traffic data. I also often get a reassurance notification "you are on the fastest route despite traffic" (and it distinguishes between "traffic" and "usual traffic"). Occasionally I'll also get a recommendation pushed to switch to another route which is faster
I’ve never used Wayz so can’t compare but quite a few other comments note how aggressive Wayz is at re-routing.
At points where there are multiple route options it will indicate how many minutes faster or slower each option is.
At points where there are multiple route options it will indicate how many minutes faster or slower each option is.
They certainly get different results - but as I said, I don't know the intricacies of their system
[deleted]
Google Maps does real-time route correction based on traffic delays. I'm not sure about any rules applied for avoiding specific local streets but it definitely warns you about traffic ahead and suggests an alternative route. It also uses historic data to estimate travel times if you tell it when (day, time) you want to leave or when you want to arrive somewhere.
We like to think of all the NIMBY's and school streets but these types of "shortcuts" suggested by mapping apps is also what sometimes leads people into dangerous neighborhoods and tragic consequences.
We like to think of all the NIMBY's and school streets but these types of "shortcuts" suggested by mapping apps is also what sometimes leads people into dangerous neighborhoods and tragic consequences.
Android location services upload to Google by default. Google even make it a feature https://www.google.com/maps/timeline?pb
I've seen Google Maps claim that a specific 500-foot stretch had a traffic jam when there were, in fact, no cars on it or anywhere near it besides mine.
Just a guess, but perhaps the only other map users had pulled over to the side and stopped. Google may have interpreted that as a traffic jam and you didn’t see them. I’m not arguing a point, it’s just a thought as to how that may happen.
"when the roads are mostly paid for by the cost of the London Underground"
Taxes on fuel used in motor vehicles (duties and VAT) are something like 30bn GBP/year in the UK.
London has about 1/6th of the UK's population, so let's assume 5bn/year comes from London.
That's 5x the annual operating profit of London Underground[0].
Government income and expenditure is fungible, so it's hard to determine precisely whether X is paid for by Y or by Z.
But it's clear that government revenue from London road users is much higher than the profit from London Underground.
So it seems strange to assert that roads are paid for mostly by London Underground.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20865111
Taxes on fuel used in motor vehicles (duties and VAT) are something like 30bn GBP/year in the UK.
London has about 1/6th of the UK's population, so let's assume 5bn/year comes from London.
That's 5x the annual operating profit of London Underground[0].
Government income and expenditure is fungible, so it's hard to determine precisely whether X is paid for by Y or by Z.
But it's clear that government revenue from London road users is much higher than the profit from London Underground.
So it seems strange to assert that roads are paid for mostly by London Underground.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20865111
Aside from the ~£30b raised in fuel taxes, there's also the ~£6b raised in vehicle excise taxes.
Both of those revenue streams go into a government general fund and are not allocated specifically for road maintenance, because they collect about 3x what is actually spent on highway & road infrastructure each year. [1]
In short, the roads & highways are massively profitable.
London's buses however, lose nearly ~£1b a year, which tanks the entire public transportation budget, and more than offsets the profit generated by the Underground.
[1] - https://www.racfoundation.org/data/road-user-taxation-highwa...
Both of those revenue streams go into a government general fund and are not allocated specifically for road maintenance, because they collect about 3x what is actually spent on highway & road infrastructure each year. [1]
In short, the roads & highways are massively profitable.
London's buses however, lose nearly ~£1b a year, which tanks the entire public transportation budget, and more than offsets the profit generated by the Underground.
[1] - https://www.racfoundation.org/data/road-user-taxation-highwa...
"revenue streams go into a government general fund"
Yes but not to TfL, who has to fund this via Tube income.
TfL actually received ~£3b in subsidies in 2018. That's compared to total gross income from the LU of £2,799m.
> The total of resource and capital grants receivable by TfL in 2018/19 amounted to £3,016m (2017/18 £2,477m). [1]
Total expenditure on roads of £539m, minus Congestion charges of £230m, means that subsidies received by TfL (covered by fuel duty & VED revenues) exceeded TfL road maintenance costs by £2,707m.
The LU does not subsidize the roads. It's actually the other way around. The net-subsidy (a.k.a government's net loss) on the LU is calculated at 9.7p per person-km, compared to a net-taxation (a.k.a government's net income) of 3.8p per person-km for driving.
[1] - http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-annual-report-and-statement-of... (See Page 126)
> The total of resource and capital grants receivable by TfL in 2018/19 amounted to £3,016m (2017/18 £2,477m). [1]
Total expenditure on roads of £539m, minus Congestion charges of £230m, means that subsidies received by TfL (covered by fuel duty & VED revenues) exceeded TfL road maintenance costs by £2,707m.
The LU does not subsidize the roads. It's actually the other way around. The net-subsidy (a.k.a government's net loss) on the LU is calculated at 9.7p per person-km, compared to a net-taxation (a.k.a government's net income) of 3.8p per person-km for driving.
[1] - http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-annual-report-and-statement-of... (See Page 126)
For reference, from the 2019/20 TFL Budget, direct operating surplus' are:
Streets -£167m
Buses: -£722m
Rail: -£49m
Underground: £823m
Elizabeth Line: -£267m
Other: £9m
Professional Services: -£560m
Property: £69m
Media: £145m
[0] http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-budget-2019-20.pdf
Streets -£167m
Buses: -£722m
Rail: -£49m
Underground: £823m
Elizabeth Line: -£267m
Other: £9m
Professional Services: -£560m
Property: £69m
Media: £145m
[0] http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-budget-2019-20.pdf
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
"London has about 1/6th of the UK's population, so let's assume 5bn/year comes from London" isn't a good assumption - very few people drive/own cars in London.
The central government does not pass on this income to Transport for London (TfL). So TfL has to fund the maintenance of the major roads (aka Red Routes) in London from the income from London Underground.
Slight Tangent: I've got a feeling that private vehicles in Zone 1 (and 2...) benefit a tiny percentage of the population, and should be the next target for reducing inner city congestion (implementation perhaps tricky).
Is this concept something you've come across in your work/field?
If not, any ideas for what is next? I hope to see:
1. Car free days over weekends in high streets.
2. Entire high streets converted to pedestrian, bus & bike only.
3. A move to a more bike/bus friendly city, see Utrecht [1]
[1] Utrecht: Planning for People & Bikes, Not for Cars https://vimeo.com/344373585
Is this concept something you've come across in your work/field?
If not, any ideas for what is next? I hope to see:
1. Car free days over weekends in high streets.
2. Entire high streets converted to pedestrian, bus & bike only.
3. A move to a more bike/bus friendly city, see Utrecht [1]
[1] Utrecht: Planning for People & Bikes, Not for Cars https://vimeo.com/344373585
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/30/kensington-c...
>One of the UK’s wealthiest councils is facing renewed pressure over its decision to block a flagship safer cycling scheme after it emerged the authority could not say what proportion of the people who wrote in expressing views on the plan actually opposed it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44405730
>Plans to pedestrianise Oxford Street in central London have been "taken off the table for good", Westminster City Council has confirmed.
>One of the UK’s wealthiest councils is facing renewed pressure over its decision to block a flagship safer cycling scheme after it emerged the authority could not say what proportion of the people who wrote in expressing views on the plan actually opposed it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44405730
>Plans to pedestrianise Oxford Street in central London have been "taken off the table for good", Westminster City Council has confirmed.
1. Has no support from central london residents and
2. Sadiq Khan has already tried to Pedestrianise Oxford Street, but was blocked by parliament.
3. There are cycle lanes and cycle highways and there is a lot of development in the cycle space - and will no doubt be continued. Bus lanes and schemes to improve buses are constantly being tried, but their uptake is low, meaning that it is difficult to increase the service, as they are not very profitable
2. Sadiq Khan has already tried to Pedestrianise Oxford Street, but was blocked by parliament.
3. There are cycle lanes and cycle highways and there is a lot of development in the cycle space - and will no doubt be continued. Bus lanes and schemes to improve buses are constantly being tried, but their uptake is low, meaning that it is difficult to increase the service, as they are not very profitable
Small correction: the pedestrianisation of Oxford St (led by Khan and the GLA) was blocked by Westminster Council, not Parliament
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khans-plan-to-m...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khans-plan-to-m...
Waze doesn't seem to allow you to specify whether you're a trade vehicle or not so it keeps routing trade vehicles into Regents (and the other Royal) Park which they are prohibited from and liable to be fined.
Agreed - I've had similar issues when renting a big van - I was directed through streets where I didn't comply with width restrictions
There are GPS tools specifically for trucks, which are aware of width and height restrictions... try one of those next time.
Did you ever tell Google maps that you were in a big fan? Otherwise, how would it know?
Google Maps doesn't have anywhere to tell it you're driving a large vehicle.
Knowing about and respecting size and weight restrictions is usually a feature on 'professional' sat nav units [1]. Serious delivery companies of course pay the premium to get this feature - but occasional van drivers don't.
[1] https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/sat-nav/truck-sat-nav/
Knowing about and respecting size and weight restrictions is usually a feature on 'professional' sat nav units [1]. Serious delivery companies of course pay the premium to get this feature - but occasional van drivers don't.
[1] https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/sat-nav/truck-sat-nav/
They probably infer your vehicle type from acceleration data
You could do that, theoretically, from several days of driving, with false positives and false negatives galore. Or you could ask the user...I know, not data driven, boooriiiing, and requires one more interaction.
How would that be possible? My sister has a new VW Polo with a 1.0L 65bhp engine, the official time to 60 is a glacial 16.5 seconds. I'm sure its acceleration profile would match that of a fully loaded HGV.
The time to turn, the time to break, way of turning lanes, all of it could be used to infer a vehicle type. I am not saying they do it, but it's likely.
If this information were used to infer vehicle size, Google would assume everyone in Seattle is driving an 18 wheeler.
It's quite error prone. I doubt they do it. Also deriving acceleration data requires sub second speed sampling. This needs to be done on device as it sends too much data sampling over the wire otherwise.
Can't imagine that being of any use in London, nothing moves.
Or more easily from the default Bluetooth name
How far are they willing to go? I wouldn't be surprised London has similar problems, but in LA I owned a house on a "back road" that ran parallel to the 405 going north over a hill. The house was built 100 years ago. Neighbors told me the road was fine until Waze/Google maps about 10 years ago. My small house went up in value quite a bit the few years I was there, but if I wanted to buy a house on a cul-de-sac it would have been double the cost of my house. My neighbors over the 30+ years they lived there had added on to their house (like many others in the area). Last I heard they were unable to sell it--who would buy a large house on a very busy road? (their's wasn't the only example I saw) There's no school or anything to warrant blocking traffic. I'm sure it's a useful road for many people where taking the highway would double their travel time.
They keep trying to expand the 405 and there aren't feasible public transit options. The few that exist rarely put you close enough to where you need to get.
At least in the US, I feel like this road design fell out of favor a decade or two before GPSes and smart-phones. Instead of smaller roads that get improved as traffic increases, they have dedicated roads for thru traffic and neighborhoods become rat's nests, designed to discourage thru traffic. Neither system seems to "grow" very well, but of course locals prefer the "modern" approach.
There was talk in my neighborhood of locals blocking off the road in the middle, which seems to make it more like the "modern" solution I've noticed in medium density housing and solve the "Waze problem."
They keep trying to expand the 405 and there aren't feasible public transit options. The few that exist rarely put you close enough to where you need to get.
At least in the US, I feel like this road design fell out of favor a decade or two before GPSes and smart-phones. Instead of smaller roads that get improved as traffic increases, they have dedicated roads for thru traffic and neighborhoods become rat's nests, designed to discourage thru traffic. Neither system seems to "grow" very well, but of course locals prefer the "modern" approach.
There was talk in my neighborhood of locals blocking off the road in the middle, which seems to make it more like the "modern" solution I've noticed in medium density housing and solve the "Waze problem."
I wonder if they could add speed bumps/tables to slow the traffic down? That might be one solution - and fairly inexpensive, too.
LA has been adding them all over. I really hate speed bumps. It feels like a band-aid on a design problem that just causes premature wear on your car--but it might be their best option.
> The main difference between Waze and Google Maps is that Waze uses real time traffic data.
Do you mean that Waze uses real time data provided by 3rd parties? Because I have always had the understanding that Gmaps uses location and telemetry data from (the Google maps) mobile apps to determine traffic conditions in near real time.
Do you mean that Waze uses real time data provided by 3rd parties? Because I have always had the understanding that Gmaps uses location and telemetry data from (the Google maps) mobile apps to determine traffic conditions in near real time.
Waze uses, at the very least, data from people who use Waze. But I suppose Waze also uses the location data Google gets from Android phones. And vice-versa.
I don't know what happens under their hood, but I know for sure they source some data from third parties. Makes sense to, considering TfL provides a lot of data - e.g. live bus times etc
I expect what they mean is Waze uses real-time traffic data for routing. Google Maps displays traffic conditions but I don't remember that impacting the routing it gives you. Last time I used it, it just marked road sections as high-traffic but didn't truly re-route around on the fly.
Do you have a citeable source for the claim that the underground pays for the roads? You often hear drivers that claim more rights because "they pay for the roads".
http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-budget-2019-20.pdf
Page 128.
London Underground does bring in more revenue 2.864bn than it spends 2.041bn, and subsidises Streets and Buses to the tune of 0.889bn (with a little coming from media revenue too).
However it isn't the 80% claimed above.
Time to find out this: about 1 minute.
Page 128.
London Underground does bring in more revenue 2.864bn than it spends 2.041bn, and subsidises Streets and Buses to the tune of 0.889bn (with a little coming from media revenue too).
However it isn't the 80% claimed above.
Time to find out this: about 1 minute.
Drivers don't pay for the roads - any more than smokers, drinkers, or anyone else that opts into a 'sin tax' pays for the roads. Vehicle duty & fuel tax both go into "general revenue", and roads are paid by local councils.
"[road tax] was formally ended in 1936 after Winston Churchill asserted the following:
[I]t is a monstrous assertion that any important body of taxpayers should claim proprietary rights over the particular quota of taxation which they contribute, and that all should not be brought into an area freely justiciable by the House of Commons."
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastructure-funding/englanda...
(aisde; a driver claiming to have more rights to roads because they pay extra tax on fuel, would be like a smoker claiming to have more rights to healthcare because they pay extra tax on tobacco products. I can imagine that wouldn't be popular. "General revenue" is supposed to disconnect source from sink to avoid exactly this.)
"[road tax] was formally ended in 1936 after Winston Churchill asserted the following:
[I]t is a monstrous assertion that any important body of taxpayers should claim proprietary rights over the particular quota of taxation which they contribute, and that all should not be brought into an area freely justiciable by the House of Commons."
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastructure-funding/englanda...
(aisde; a driver claiming to have more rights to roads because they pay extra tax on fuel, would be like a smoker claiming to have more rights to healthcare because they pay extra tax on tobacco products. I can imagine that wouldn't be popular. "General revenue" is supposed to disconnect source from sink to avoid exactly this.)
> These thousands of homeowners and renters have arguably been injured by Waze’s and Google’s successful privatization of formerly public streets.
That's a... very creative interpetation of what public and private mean.
If you don't want your side street to be driven on at 30 mph, then you can't drive on it at 30 mph either. Traffic calming measures are a thing. Make it even more winding, add road bumps, bottlenecks. Turn it into a 12mph street, and no one will use it as a shortcut anymore.
That's a... very creative interpetation of what public and private mean.
If you don't want your side street to be driven on at 30 mph, then you can't drive on it at 30 mph either. Traffic calming measures are a thing. Make it even more winding, add road bumps, bottlenecks. Turn it into a 12mph street, and no one will use it as a shortcut anymore.
These "NIMBY" people always make me laught.
if you dont want to have a ton of traffic dont buy a house on a major road.
There is a street on the subdivision i live in with the same issue. it is the main entry point to the subdivision. people bought houses there, then fought the city for years over traffic?
they put up stop signs, speed bumps, etc.
they wanted the lower house prices associated with living on main roads, but then tried to redirect traffic elsewhere?
if you dont want to have a ton of traffic dont buy a house on a major road.
There is a street on the subdivision i live in with the same issue. it is the main entry point to the subdivision. people bought houses there, then fought the city for years over traffic?
they put up stop signs, speed bumps, etc.
they wanted the lower house prices associated with living on main roads, but then tried to redirect traffic elsewhere?
The issue is that traffic apps turned non-main roads into main roads, not that people bought on main roads then tried to block them.
NIMBYism can be a problem, but it's still important to characterize the issues at hand accurately.
NIMBYism can be a problem, but it's still important to characterize the issues at hand accurately.
Well the issue behind that issue IMO is that so many US streets can be used as main roads. They were built overly-spaciously with only the interests of car drivers in mind.
It's worse than that in LA. These people live in an urban center, the middle of a city with millions of people, and expect it to behave like some austere countryside in New Hampshire.
If that's what they want, move. Cities aren't for antisocial shutins. Why are they here? Go get a bunch of land at a great price in the beautiful quiet countryside. Really, I wish them the best. Melrose and La Brea isn't going to be a good fit, enjoy time elsewhere.
If that's what they want, move. Cities aren't for antisocial shutins. Why are they here? Go get a bunch of land at a great price in the beautiful quiet countryside. Really, I wish them the best. Melrose and La Brea isn't going to be a good fit, enjoy time elsewhere.
This is literally why people (like me) keep buying further and further out into the suburbs. If you want quiet and nobody driving down your street then you need to live on a dead end or cul de sac somewhere way out on the edge of said metropolis.
>if you dont want to have a ton of traffic dont buy a house on a major road.
You're not wrong, but Waze directs traffic down roads that aren't considered main thoroughfares. That's part of the issue. There are paths to work that I would have never imagined had I not used Waze, and plenty of those routes take me through quiet neighborhoods.
A good example is the shunting yard I encounter. Most of the time, trains are short enough that if they stop, they don't block the crossing. There is a short way through a neighborhood that adds a couple of minutes to your commute (in either direction) that dumps you out on a highway just on the other side. There are also two longer routes (one for north, one for south) that goes around neighborhoods but adds 10-20 minutes to your drive time. I wouldn't call the short route a main nor major road, but I'm sure the residents who bought those houses more than a few years ago didn't know that the uptick in rail usage would cause much more activity on their street. You can even cut deeper into the neighborhood to save minutes by circumventing the line of cars.
On a related note, I stopped using Waze after watching someone roll through about 5 stop signs. The driver didn't hit anything, but that moment made me realize that I was part of a neighborhood nuisance that nobody asked for.
You're not wrong, but Waze directs traffic down roads that aren't considered main thoroughfares. That's part of the issue. There are paths to work that I would have never imagined had I not used Waze, and plenty of those routes take me through quiet neighborhoods.
A good example is the shunting yard I encounter. Most of the time, trains are short enough that if they stop, they don't block the crossing. There is a short way through a neighborhood that adds a couple of minutes to your commute (in either direction) that dumps you out on a highway just on the other side. There are also two longer routes (one for north, one for south) that goes around neighborhoods but adds 10-20 minutes to your drive time. I wouldn't call the short route a main nor major road, but I'm sure the residents who bought those houses more than a few years ago didn't know that the uptick in rail usage would cause much more activity on their street. You can even cut deeper into the neighborhood to save minutes by circumventing the line of cars.
On a related note, I stopped using Waze after watching someone roll through about 5 stop signs. The driver didn't hit anything, but that moment made me realize that I was part of a neighborhood nuisance that nobody asked for.
What does using Waze have to do with ignoring road signage?
I'm pretty confident Waze routes people not by posted speed limits, but by average driving habits and traffic speeds.
I do think Waze users are self-selecting. People that are willing to take "short cuts" choose Waze. I often ignore Waze's suggestions and have had people in the car with me comment on the extra turns and backroads.
There's a certain type of driver who prefers to mostly "tune out" and take the most direct route versus someone who wants to get there with the quickest ETA even if that means a more complex route.
I do think Waze users are self-selecting. People that are willing to take "short cuts" choose Waze. I often ignore Waze's suggestions and have had people in the car with me comment on the extra turns and backroads.
There's a certain type of driver who prefers to mostly "tune out" and take the most direct route versus someone who wants to get there with the quickest ETA even if that means a more complex route.
I'd be amazed if this is true. Especially as Waze has a GPS based speedometer built in that goes red if you go over the speed limit.
I image it looks at a combination of speed limit, current traffic and then if the historical data is faster than the speed limit it discards the historical data.
I image it looks at a combination of speed limit, current traffic and then if the historical data is faster than the speed limit it discards the historical data.
Just anecdotally I feel like I have to drive fairly aggressively to meet the estimates. I'm quick to disregard Waze because it will often throw me into an awkward intersection where I know taking a route with fewer turns would get me there faster. Waze also doesn't have speed data for many stretches of road. As it got added (and since) I haven't noticed any changes in routing or ETAs. I'd be very curious about an actual answer, but that's why I suspect it doesn't use it.
I think the point is that residents of formerly quiet side streets are not happy about living on a Waze-induced thoroughfare... and understandably so, in my opinion.
I could understand not being happy about it, but I don't understand the desire to make google or waze be at fault here. Those drivers are ultimately responsible for where they drive, and in any case, the way they are using the roads is legal.
It would be irresponsible and make their respective apps uncompetitive if they arbitrarily chose to not give me the best route to my destination.
It would be irresponsible and make their respective apps uncompetitive if they arbitrarily chose to not give me the best route to my destination.
Not much different from people buying cheap[er] houses near an airport and then complaining about airplane noise (and sometimes trying to get the airport to close).
I think it is. A lot of LA was built out 100 years ago. Many of these people bought their house 20+ years ago. Waze started causing problems within the last 10 years and the marginal value of using these roads can be debated. I can't imagine these back roads relieving 405 traffic by any reasonable amount.
>they wanted the lower house prices associated with living on main roads, but then tried to redirect traffic elsewhere?
If it works, why not? Buy a lower priced house due to traffic. Get politicians to change traffic. Sell house at higher value now that traffic conditions or better (or otherwise enjoy the now higher valued house). Are we to suggest that it is wrong to encourage politicians to act in a way that benefits an individual?
If it works, why not? Buy a lower priced house due to traffic. Get politicians to change traffic. Sell house at higher value now that traffic conditions or better (or otherwise enjoy the now higher valued house). Are we to suggest that it is wrong to encourage politicians to act in a way that benefits an individual?
My road is a winding country lane in a small city. The speed limit is 30MPH. Visibility is poor, the street winds and narrows. People have run into houses, but that doesn't stop people from gunning it to 60-70MPH on the small straight sections that exist and throwing their liquor bottles into my yard. People don't care about other people when they get behind the wheel of a vehicle and their aren't enough police to solve the problem. People are the problem.
Your local authorities could fix the small straight sections so that people couldn't drive over the speed limit there.
Ask the government to break the road and install a park there.
They don't even have snow. Add the speed bumps. Lots of them.
What if I don't drive on it at 30 mph, stay under the official 25 mph limit, but plenty of people cutting through drive it at 40?
It’s disappointing to see LADOT neglecting to use a road management tool already at their disposal to stop Waze’s abuse of their residential zones:
No Thru Traffic.
Posting NTT signs at entry points into residential neighborhoods and specifying even as little as a $5 fine would make entry for thru routing unlawful, stopping Waze.
Whether or not the city enforces these signs would be irrelevant, as long as the traffic laws were in place permitting enforcement. Their simple presence would require Waze editors to accurately identify all such entry points and force Waze to prefer the surrounding arterials. They are, I believe, requires to denote such signage to their maps so that Waze does not compel unlawful driving behaviors, even if some percentage of drivers might otherwise make the entry illegally.
As an additional possible bonus, by marking zones as NTT, the Waze algorithms would not only exclude those zones but likely also reject periphery roads near those zones, as their value as a shortcut would diminish further versus the arterials they circumvent.
No Thru Traffic.
Posting NTT signs at entry points into residential neighborhoods and specifying even as little as a $5 fine would make entry for thru routing unlawful, stopping Waze.
Whether or not the city enforces these signs would be irrelevant, as long as the traffic laws were in place permitting enforcement. Their simple presence would require Waze editors to accurately identify all such entry points and force Waze to prefer the surrounding arterials. They are, I believe, requires to denote such signage to their maps so that Waze does not compel unlawful driving behaviors, even if some percentage of drivers might otherwise make the entry illegally.
As an additional possible bonus, by marking zones as NTT, the Waze algorithms would not only exclude those zones but likely also reject periphery roads near those zones, as their value as a shortcut would diminish further versus the arterials they circumvent.
And to what end? I’m of the firm belief that the good done by Waze far outweighs the cost to the NIMBYs. In LA we have a traffic crisis. Sorry but your government built and tax funded residential street is just as much mine to use as it is yours. I won’t speed through it but I sure as hell have a right to use it as much as the local home owners.
The city should not be doing what your suggesting until they’ve solved the traffic crisis and provided actual solutions.
The freeways are parking lots. Housing costs in the city are insane. So workers are forced to have longer and longer commutes. And the city’s infrastructure crawls to a halt at rush hours.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.
The city should not be doing what your suggesting until they’ve solved the traffic crisis and provided actual solutions.
The freeways are parking lots. Housing costs in the city are insane. So workers are forced to have longer and longer commutes. And the city’s infrastructure crawls to a halt at rush hours.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.
Minor neighborhood roads are necessary so that residents can get home, but they were never intended for mass through traffic. Traffic near humans increases risk to life by way of accidents as well as localized air pollution (living within a short distance of a major roadway is extremely unhealthy in the long term, independently of the issue of regional air pollution that covers all of socal). Using roads for a purpose they were never engineered to serve is not the way out of LA's traffic crisis. But sure, saving two minutes on your commute is worth the cost of running over a dog or child now and then.
Residential streets are not designed for heavy through traffic.
It comes back to “why we can’t have nice things”. Abuse. Many systems work when they are not abused but break down when they are abused.
It comes back to “why we can’t have nice things”. Abuse. Many systems work when they are not abused but break down when they are abused.
Well that's not really what I hear the NIMBYs complaining about. "Hey our streets are forming ruts and potholes from the excess traffic! We need better reinforcing under our street to prevent this!"
Good! You can continue ignoring the NIMBYs then! You can both spite them and focus on the actual problem.
> Residential streets are not designed for heavy through traffic.
One could argue that every street is designed for the amount of traffic that it is able to support- that is, the one that keeps the vehicles circulating at normal speed on that road. If the main road is congested, then it means that that road is not designed for that level of traffic. The Waze algorithm is fine until it moves the congestion to a narrower road.
In theory, a well designed algorithm should direct to secondary and residential roads only the amount of traffic that doesn't congest them, not one car more.
One could argue that every street is designed for the amount of traffic that it is able to support- that is, the one that keeps the vehicles circulating at normal speed on that road. If the main road is congested, then it means that that road is not designed for that level of traffic. The Waze algorithm is fine until it moves the congestion to a narrower road.
In theory, a well designed algorithm should direct to secondary and residential roads only the amount of traffic that doesn't congest them, not one car more.
Isn't that what Waze does? It recommends uncongested streets.
And designed for isn't just about width and capacity. Its about robustness. There are many ways to build a road. Residential streets are built with less underlayment, cheaper surfaces. Because they will last for decades with low traffic. Burden them, and they'll collapse under the load.
And designed for isn't just about width and capacity. Its about robustness. There are many ways to build a road. Residential streets are built with less underlayment, cheaper surfaces. Because they will last for decades with low traffic. Burden them, and they'll collapse under the load.
The 405 is what 6 lanes in each direction now? How much extra value do you get by ruining nearby neighborhoods? I'm not saying people shouldn't deal with the change, just that it should be looked at before writing off people that have been living there for decades.
> I won’t speed through it but I sure as hell have a right to use it as much as the local home owners.
That's the point of No Through Traffic. It removes your "right" to impose your externality on the residents adjacent to previously-quiet street. You are not physically prevented from getting to your destination and are reduced to the path you already took.
> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
You are the few in this case.
That's the point of No Through Traffic. It removes your "right" to impose your externality on the residents adjacent to previously-quiet street. You are not physically prevented from getting to your destination and are reduced to the path you already took.
> The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
You are the few in this case.
That attitude is similar to a rationale for public vandalism. It's my street! Why shouldn't I turn over the trash cans and spraypaint on the street signs if I want to!
It does actual damage to the infrastructure, to misuse it in the ways being discussed. Its not just a matter of "I prefer a quiet neighborhood".
It does actual damage to the infrastructure, to misuse it in the ways being discussed. Its not just a matter of "I prefer a quiet neighborhood".
You apparently didn't read the article. Traffic got worse after Waze, not better. Now the highways are jammed and the side streets which has made traffic worse overall and drive times slower. Waze created a worse problem. The solution is to create better public transportation and can more cars. There's a solution, I'm just sure you won't like it.
What if Waze labeled these as possibly $5 toll roads? If the penalty to the driver is $5 that is never enforced, what is the penalty to Waze if they just inform users there may be a penalty (and maybe even add the ability for people to record if it is being enforced or not)?
If Waze labels a traffic violation as a toll, they will lose the moral high ground (“it’s legal, what is the problem?” negated) and expose both Waze and its contributors to significant liability - and risk being ordered by a court to take actions (such as “disable all routing within Los Angeles” or “provide a real-time data feed of all routings to LADOT for analysis and enforcement”).
> What if Waze labeled these as possibly $5 toll roads?
As a general rule of thumb, the law looks dimly on naked attempts to subvert it.
As a general rule of thumb, the law looks dimly on naked attempts to subvert it.
In Boston, Waze and Google Maps will often suggest routes that are illegal, whether it's an NTT zone, a completely closed road, or no-left-turn violations.
I encourage you to sign up as a Waze route editor and submit an annotation to the segments of your routes that are illegal/invalid with photo evidence, both to improve the quality of their directions and to ensure that the Waze editors are not corrupting the dataset in order to get faster travel directions. If you find your edits overturned, write [email protected] & [email protected] — they will both very much want to know that Waze editors discouraged reporting of illegal routing!
For Google Maps, here are the directions for reporting illegal/invalid routing directions with photo evidence: https://support.google.com/maps/answer/6194894
For Google Maps, here are the directions for reporting illegal/invalid routing directions with photo evidence: https://support.google.com/maps/answer/6194894
Not sure that reducing thruway and adding tolls is the solution to traffic..in fact it sounds counterproductive.
Posting signs would also mean dedicating police resources to enforcement, which tends to be a pretty unpopular use of public services. The proper option would be for Waze to work with LA/LADOT to mark roads, but it seems like they are either unable or actively hostile to resolving the core issue of overloading streets.
> Posting signs would also mean dedicating police resources to enforcement
How would it /necessarily/ require dedication of additional police resources? Are you implying that there is some actual or legal requirement for the city to do so?
If not, I don't see how posting a few more NTT signs is significantly different from the status quo, namely that there are already not enough police to enforce all traffic laws in all locations at all times.
How would it /necessarily/ require dedication of additional police resources? Are you implying that there is some actual or legal requirement for the city to do so?
If not, I don't see how posting a few more NTT signs is significantly different from the status quo, namely that there are already not enough police to enforce all traffic laws in all locations at all times.
The police would not be required to add resources to enforce these laws. But without enforcement the signs would make very little difference to LA drivers.
The whole premise of the article is that it only needs to coerce Waze’ routing. If the glut of traffic is just following the blue line, the minority that route themselves shouldn’t be enough to cause problems - or at least, they apparently weren’t pre-waze.
[deleted]
If drivers are not routed into residential areas by Waze as there are no thru routes for Waze to use, then they will be on their own to seek out and find ways to avoid highways and risk police citing them for taking residential zone shortcuts in the process. It won’t stop every driver, but it will curb the majority of them from ever finding or using residential zones as a bypass.
my humble guess is that the genie is out of the bottle: the vast majority of these LA drivers are daily commuters. now that these drivers are used to taking these routes, most of these residential neighborhoods will remain saturated permanently. removing the routes from Waze won't relieve much traffic pressure.
The article mentions a gentleman that somehow 'disabled' his street in the waze map editor, and described the effect as a tap being turned off. I think that's the goal here. Not "no traffic", but not "drinking from the hosepipe" either - that's what arterials are designed for.
Ultimately, if it can't be tamed by more tactful means, the proper solution will be to close one end of these routes so the go from being posted as NTT, to actually being NTT. Ruin it for everyone, and see if anyone ever catches on that their selfishness has consequences.
Ultimately, if it can't be tamed by more tactful means, the proper solution will be to close one end of these routes so the go from being posted as NTT, to actually being NTT. Ruin it for everyone, and see if anyone ever catches on that their selfishness has consequences.
I believe the LADOT's goal here is "no thru traffic", wherein cars only enter a given "residential zone" when they have reason to be present in it, and that's why my idea centers around most clearly stating that.
If you try to take actions that are not "no thru traffic", the area would need to have precisely one ingress-egress point, at the same point, in order to ensure that there are no one-way ingresses/egresses for thru traffic routing algorithms to take advantage. This single in-out location would prevent Waze from considering the neighborhood for thru traffic, at the expense of increasing drive times for residents of the neighborhood for all egress points removed. The political fights over this would be an absolute nightmare, as there would be a perceived risk of negative impact to home values for all homes near former egress points due to increased trip times.
Simply making it a traffic violation to "thru" a residential zone does no harm to residents and businesses, as they retain their free right of ingress/egress to/from their zones, and allows residents to request enforcement if an unusually high level of thru traffic impacts their zone for any reason (Waze or otherwise). That's why I propose it rather than more drastic alternatives.
If you try to take actions that are not "no thru traffic", the area would need to have precisely one ingress-egress point, at the same point, in order to ensure that there are no one-way ingresses/egresses for thru traffic routing algorithms to take advantage. This single in-out location would prevent Waze from considering the neighborhood for thru traffic, at the expense of increasing drive times for residents of the neighborhood for all egress points removed. The political fights over this would be an absolute nightmare, as there would be a perceived risk of negative impact to home values for all homes near former egress points due to increased trip times.
Simply making it a traffic violation to "thru" a residential zone does no harm to residents and businesses, as they retain their free right of ingress/egress to/from their zones, and allows residents to request enforcement if an unusually high level of thru traffic impacts their zone for any reason (Waze or otherwise). That's why I propose it rather than more drastic alternatives.
They do make a big difference to the routing algorithms in Waze. How many LA drivers are just following GPS directions now?
In LA are these shortcuts worth it?
I was surprised to find with Google maps more often than not it suggests to just take that busy highway that is crawling alone because ... it really is faster. I've tried to defy google maps ... rarely do I win.
Granted google maps is wrong at times. During snowstorms it loves to send me down off streets that haven't yet been plowed or ... worse random county roads you do not want to be on during a storm. I think it inadvertently interprets "hey nobody is on this road so it must be faster" when nobody is there because that road is terrible with snow and you're far better crawling along the highway where plows will be or may have been ... or other vehicles have made tracks.
I was surprised to find with Google maps more often than not it suggests to just take that busy highway that is crawling alone because ... it really is faster. I've tried to defy google maps ... rarely do I win.
Granted google maps is wrong at times. During snowstorms it loves to send me down off streets that haven't yet been plowed or ... worse random county roads you do not want to be on during a storm. I think it inadvertently interprets "hey nobody is on this road so it must be faster" when nobody is there because that road is terrible with snow and you're far better crawling along the highway where plows will be or may have been ... or other vehicles have made tracks.
I once read (sorry can't find cite) that Waze and Google maps run roughly the same routing algorithm now, but Waze is hyper-optimized for time whereas Google maps is optimized for some nebulous quality akin to "fastest reasonable route" where unreasonable factors are things like using small roads, exiting and entering the high a bunch, extra turns, etc.
So Waze probably is faster by a bit, but not a whole ton.
In my experience, Google Maps ETA has gotten to be frighteningly accurate in the past 6 months. For situations where traffic doesn't materially change during the trip, my ETA will be within 2 minutes of arrival even on trips of over an hour.
So Waze probably is faster by a bit, but not a whole ton.
In my experience, Google Maps ETA has gotten to be frighteningly accurate in the past 6 months. For situations where traffic doesn't materially change during the trip, my ETA will be within 2 minutes of arrival even on trips of over an hour.
I've noticed Waze optimizing for quickness. Not fastest, not shortest, not most direct but the route which makes you feel like you are getting there quicker. Often longer stretches with no traffic or junctions for example.
It's as if users main priority is not to be held up. Users don't care if the journey is two minutes longer or a few pence more expensive, they just don't want to be feeling they are making no progress.
It's as if users main priority is not to be held up. Users don't care if the journey is two minutes longer or a few pence more expensive, they just don't want to be feeling they are making no progress.
" they just don't want to be feeling they are making no progress."
I think you may have just convinced me to use Waze instead of Google Maps. I'd much rather relieve the stress of driving a bit than save a few minutes of time.
Well, actually, I'd rather not drive at all. But seeing as that isn't really an option, I'll settle for making it less stressful.
I think you may have just convinced me to use Waze instead of Google Maps. I'd much rather relieve the stress of driving a bit than save a few minutes of time.
Well, actually, I'd rather not drive at all. But seeing as that isn't really an option, I'll settle for making it less stressful.
I’m 36 and have lived in a mix of rural and urban areas of America and I never learned to drive and have never driven a car.
Just want to make the point that not driving is really an option, just one that most people look for a way to avoid. It’s all a matter of priorities and as much as most people say they hate driving/traffic, very few actually do anything about it.
Just want to make the point that not driving is really an option, just one that most people look for a way to avoid. It’s all a matter of priorities and as much as most people say they hate driving/traffic, very few actually do anything about it.
IME Waze is actually dangerous because it doesn't mind sending you on crazy maneuvers like making uncontrolled left turns across 8 lane roads only to immediately merge across three lanes and hang another turn. At times it saves a couple minutes, other times it backfires spectacularly, and at all times it disdains safety and simplicity. For me, it's much higher stress.
At some level that's true. But it's also true it significantly constrains your life choices. I've had one job in my life that I could maybe have reasonably held without being able to drive. (Business travel would still have been somewhat of an issue.) And my entire personal lifestyle would have to have been totally different.
Also, a lot of people just aren't in a position to realistically say "no" to any job that involves a need to drive.
Also, a lot of people just aren't in a position to realistically say "no" to any job that involves a need to drive.
I think it's a little ridiculous to say "I would rather not have to drive" and then make 0 life choices to reduce the reliance on driving, which is exactly what most people do.
People do often take the length of commutes into account. But, while many would prefer not to have to drive in the abstract, in practice that preference doesn't rise to the level of:
- Moving into a smaller place in a city
- Potentially putting kids into worse schools
- Passing on many of the recreational and travel activities that require driving
- Passing on job opportunities that have better salaries, career paths, etc.
- Not visiting friends and family who live places you need to drive to
All of which may be the result of not being able to drive or making a decision to prioritize minimal driving over everything else. There are a lot of things that people prefer in principle but, when presented with the actual choices, they make tradeoffs that favor different things.
- Moving into a smaller place in a city
- Potentially putting kids into worse schools
- Passing on many of the recreational and travel activities that require driving
- Passing on job opportunities that have better salaries, career paths, etc.
- Not visiting friends and family who live places you need to drive to
All of which may be the result of not being able to drive or making a decision to prioritize minimal driving over everything else. There are a lot of things that people prefer in principle but, when presented with the actual choices, they make tradeoffs that favor different things.
It's true that I could make choices that would reduce my driving further. I could Uber, or take local buses. I could even ask my wife to drive me around, and she'd probably do it, bless her heart.
But Uber is way more expensive, local buses would add hours to my commute every single day, and I'm not nearly selfish enough to make my wife drive me to and from work every day.
Oh, and bicycling is far, far too dangerous here. Otherwise, I'd totally pick that option.
But Uber is way more expensive, local buses would add hours to my commute every single day, and I'm not nearly selfish enough to make my wife drive me to and from work every day.
Oh, and bicycling is far, far too dangerous here. Otherwise, I'd totally pick that option.
[deleted]
Which rural areas have you lived in?
> It's as if users main priority is not to be held up
I believe this to be a very real and widespread emotional phenomenon. Not only have I observed it in countless other drivers, even as a quite experienced driver myself, I still feel it on a regular basis. Sitting at a stoplight for too long sometimes just makes me irrationally angry, and I will often add a couple minutes to my commute to avoid the experience. I know it's stupid and am trying to change the behavior, but it's difficult.
I believe this to be a very real and widespread emotional phenomenon. Not only have I observed it in countless other drivers, even as a quite experienced driver myself, I still feel it on a regular basis. Sitting at a stoplight for too long sometimes just makes me irrationally angry, and I will often add a couple minutes to my commute to avoid the experience. I know it's stupid and am trying to change the behavior, but it's difficult.
The psychological pressures of 'progress' and 'entrapment' (E.G. being trapped in gridlock or long lines) are not to be underestimated.
If rush hour were still actually an _hour_ rather than a smear that covers all of daylight hours and then some, happy hours and other 'avoid the traffic' distractions would likely see more utilization as an alternate means of avoiding the above problems.
If rush hour were still actually an _hour_ rather than a smear that covers all of daylight hours and then some, happy hours and other 'avoid the traffic' distractions would likely see more utilization as an alternate means of avoiding the above problems.
I have had Waze give me some very good detours, for example driving to northern Michigan on a holiday weekend where there's a ton of traffic, get off the freeway before the massive traffic jam and onto the parallel 55mph highway, then get back on once the jam is cleared.
OTOH, it was responsible for getting me my only traffic ticket, for violating a (very hard to spot) no through traffic sign.
OTOH, it was responsible for getting me my only traffic ticket, for violating a (very hard to spot) no through traffic sign.
Do you use turn by turn navigation in Maps? It could've adjusted its predictions to your driving patterns.
I'd assume any kind of "ETAnet" would be trained on everyone's driving patterns, not individuals.
I don't know, but I always assumed that a simple optimization would be one that compared your typical driving speed to posted speed limits on open roads. That is, do you usually drive 5 or 10 miles (kilometers) per hour under or over the limit when you have the choice?
I suppose they could. I just think there's enough driving patterns that can be detected in aggregate, that a network could detect your typical style much better with everyone's data, rather than training just from you.
There must be some training involved on the user level. My route to the freeway can take 1 of 2 parallel roads. The bigger road is theoretically a minute faster but often enough the left turn lane backs up for multiple light cycles. The smaller road is quite consistent in it's timing. A minute slower if the lights work out and a minute faster if you would have to wait.
I prefer the consistent route and now Google almost never tries to send me the "faster" way.
I prefer the consistent route and now Google almost never tries to send me the "faster" way.
My experience with Google Maps is that the accuracy is proportional to how close you are to Mountain View.
It's very accurate in Budapest so I don't think thats true.
In my experience the walking directions are the ones that suffer the most. Here's an example I discovered on my last vacation that still looks like it happens. Try asking Google Maps for walking directions to the Arc de Triomphe in Paris from any point nearby such as the George V metro stop. For anyone unfamiliar with how to get there, there is a pedestrian tunnel from the Champs-Elysees that goes underneath the roundabout and comes out right at the Arc de Triomphe.
In the Twin Cities as well.
For about six months before I moved closer to work I had a super commute between Olympia, WA to Kent, WA just south of Seattle. I do not recommend this.
Anyways- for the first month or so I used Waze religiously as this is a notoriously bad commute. I realized after a few nasty trips through Fife that unless you were among th very first few people to catch a rerouting, the roads people were routed to were painfully undersized to handle freeway traffic. I have not used Waze since and am very cautious when following Google map redirections.
Anyways- for the first month or so I used Waze religiously as this is a notoriously bad commute. I realized after a few nasty trips through Fife that unless you were among th very first few people to catch a rerouting, the roads people were routed to were painfully undersized to handle freeway traffic. I have not used Waze since and am very cautious when following Google map redirections.
Waze has given me a lot of stupid advice in the last couple years. It will take me off a freeway, requiring many lane changes in heavy traffic, only to route me onto a clogged surface street and back onto the freeway after an exit or two. It usually fails to save me any time, and causes a lot of headaches. I stick with Google Maps now unless I need the police and hazard warnings(long road trips mostly).
I've had similar experiences with Waze. These sorts of things drive me insane. All of this sort of maneuvering around and jockeying for position... For what? If I'm lucky I can save myself 5 minutes? No, thank you. I wish these apps had options to turn that stuff off.
Having said that, I'm not a SoCal native but I've been here for over a decade now. It drives some of my SoCal native friends up the wall that I won't get in the freeway for only one or two exits, etc... I just don't operate at that pace of life.
Having said that, I'm not a SoCal native but I've been here for over a decade now. It drives some of my SoCal native friends up the wall that I won't get in the freeway for only one or two exits, etc... I just don't operate at that pace of life.
That's the whole point of Waze: if you weren't trying to frantically get somewhere as fast as possible, no matter the cost (I mean, this app is even trying to warn you about police cars so you can get a lower risk for constantly speeding...) you would download a more mainstream app.
Okay, but, Google Maps has speedtrap warnings, too, though.
I may be mistaken, but I think only in certain locations - I've certainly never been able to use it (maybe I just haven't found out how to turn it on)
I just observed one day that it was turned on. I don't recall when, but I do recall where. I was on the I-15 driving north from the Lake Elsinore area towards Corona and saw a weird icon on the map. Had my wife check it out and we learned that it was speed trap notifications.
In my experience, they're never accurate. In fact, it's almost laughable how inaccurate they are. Google really expects me to believe that US-1 in NJ is going to have speed traps? A highway where cops regularly do the Jersey Shuffle at 90+ MPH with no emergency to justify doing 25+ over the limit? Yeah right.
It's one thing when it happens once in VA (a state I'm used to seeing lots of speed traps in) and there is no cop, it's another entirely when it happens in a state where the cops are the biggest speeders.
It's one thing when it happens once in VA (a state I'm used to seeing lots of speed traps in) and there is no cop, it's another entirely when it happens in a state where the cops are the biggest speeders.
It seems to be based on self-reporting, so I'm sure it's 80% worthless.
But, the whole reason I brought this up in the first place is because: 1) Google Maps is as mainstream of a maps app as one can find, and it has speed trap reporting, and it will also try to re-route you around gridlock, which I personally find to be little more than a pointless exercise in frustration, and, 2) I noticed that it (speed trap reporting) was actually quite accurate, surprisingly so, in fact, on _a_ recent trip along the I-5 north and then again south through Kern and Kings county (which are notorious for their speed traps, Kings specifically).
I don't generally speed fast enough to get pulled over, I set my cruise control at 7mph over the speed limit on the highway. It's still nice to know that there may be a speed trap coming up, especially if you're driving through one of the perpetually-under-construction zones on a California highway.
But, the whole reason I brought this up in the first place is because: 1) Google Maps is as mainstream of a maps app as one can find, and it has speed trap reporting, and it will also try to re-route you around gridlock, which I personally find to be little more than a pointless exercise in frustration, and, 2) I noticed that it (speed trap reporting) was actually quite accurate, surprisingly so, in fact, on _a_ recent trip along the I-5 north and then again south through Kern and Kings county (which are notorious for their speed traps, Kings specifically).
I don't generally speed fast enough to get pulled over, I set my cruise control at 7mph over the speed limit on the highway. It's still nice to know that there may be a speed trap coming up, especially if you're driving through one of the perpetually-under-construction zones on a California highway.
> It usually fails to save me any time, and causes a lot of headaches.
If it takes you much more time and effort to navigate traffic than the average road user you won't benefit much from Waze because any gains in time will be negated by the time penalty (relative to average) every time you need to do something that requires being aggressive (merging, left turns, etc). Similarly if you're driving a large commercial vehicle you should probably not use Waze.
If it takes you much more time and effort to navigate traffic than the average road user you won't benefit much from Waze because any gains in time will be negated by the time penalty (relative to average) every time you need to do something that requires being aggressive (merging, left turns, etc). Similarly if you're driving a large commercial vehicle you should probably not use Waze.
I'm at the point where I check Google Maps, then Apple maps (to confirm Apple maps isn't sending me to the wrong place) then close Google maps - Gmaps rerouting can be horrible, and is opt-out which can be tough to notice sometimes.
I'll stick to arterial roads, thankyouverymuch, and take my chances. Once in France it sent us on a dirt road - the car with my other family got there 10m faster by sticking to the autoroute.
I'll stick to arterial roads, thankyouverymuch, and take my chances. Once in France it sent us on a dirt road - the car with my other family got there 10m faster by sticking to the autoroute.
The opt-out for rerouting is a truly awful design choice.
One time I was driving up through NYC during a heavy downpour where visibility was only a few car-lengths ahead. Traffic had slowed to about 30 mph on the NJTP and most people thankfully had their hazard flashers on. Then Google Maps decides to distract me and pile on the anxiety with multiple "press no in the next 10 seconds or else!" re-routing prompts to save at most 5 minutes.
Just yesterday I got a pop-under to "confirm" that a speed trap was still in effect, which of course obscured some vital information on screen for a few minutes until it finally gave up.
Demanding that your user take their attention off the road to fumble with a touch screen just to stay on the route they're comfortable with is dangerous, and if I opt out once it should at the very least snooze those alerts.
One time I was driving up through NYC during a heavy downpour where visibility was only a few car-lengths ahead. Traffic had slowed to about 30 mph on the NJTP and most people thankfully had their hazard flashers on. Then Google Maps decides to distract me and pile on the anxiety with multiple "press no in the next 10 seconds or else!" re-routing prompts to save at most 5 minutes.
Just yesterday I got a pop-under to "confirm" that a speed trap was still in effect, which of course obscured some vital information on screen for a few minutes until it finally gave up.
Demanding that your user take their attention off the road to fumble with a touch screen just to stay on the route they're comfortable with is dangerous, and if I opt out once it should at the very least snooze those alerts.
[deleted]
It seems like Waze should be smarter by slowly shunting a portion of traffic to alternative routes, and seeing how much it can support.
Ironically, I did the reverse commute for several months, which wasn't bad at all, provided I timed my trip thru JBLM correctly.
When driving around the DC beltway I found it indispensable. But I did not follow it blindly. I used it over the course of months to find what routes had potential and which did not, and a lot of times I got stuck unnecessarily in side road traffic. This taught me a few viable routes for when the beltway really was gridlocked. It also taught me how to gauge the level of traffic reports for how early I needed to bail from the freeway onto side roads, or stick it out if it would clear up.
Occasionally, but not when 5% of the potential freeway traffic gets routed onto the same tiny sidestreet. Waze is also notorious for asking people to make impossible left turns across 10 lanes of traffic.
I find Google Maps is way more conservative with those kinds of left turns where they'd rather I'd go to an intersection and make a U turn or a couple extra turns where ... actually you can make a left before there.
Granted, being conservative is probabbly the right call.
Granted, being conservative is probabbly the right call.
> In LA are these shortcuts worth it?
Nowadays I suspect not. Google has so much telemetry that it probably doesn't miss any real paths anymore.
Anything attempting to reroute me to save less than 5 minutes certainly isn't worth the grief of the odd turns, streets, etc. that I will have to navigate for the first time.
Nowadays I suspect not. Google has so much telemetry that it probably doesn't miss any real paths anymore.
Anything attempting to reroute me to save less than 5 minutes certainly isn't worth the grief of the odd turns, streets, etc. that I will have to navigate for the first time.
> save less than 5 minutes certainly isn't worth the grief
I wish we could set this threshold in the app. I'm happy to spend an extra 2 minutes on the freeway if it's a lighter cognitive load. Hell, if I'm on my way to work I might accept an extra 10-15 minutes. But, if I'm running late for a flight then I'm going to dial it up to save every minute possible.
I wish we could set this threshold in the app. I'm happy to spend an extra 2 minutes on the freeway if it's a lighter cognitive load. Hell, if I'm on my way to work I might accept an extra 10-15 minutes. But, if I'm running late for a flight then I'm going to dial it up to save every minute possible.
they can be minimally quicker once Waze catches on.
One of my current shortcuts that I've taken for over 10 years dropped off the Waze radar during the summer when traffic is less. With school back in session, I am now saving 15 minutes on my commute. However, once Waze catches on and starts sending folks down my shortcut, I'll be lucky to save just a few minutes. It is for this reason I don't let any apps track my commute to work.
One of my current shortcuts that I've taken for over 10 years dropped off the Waze radar during the summer when traffic is less. With school back in session, I am now saving 15 minutes on my commute. However, once Waze catches on and starts sending folks down my shortcut, I'll be lucky to save just a few minutes. It is for this reason I don't let any apps track my commute to work.
When i'm on a detour of sorts I often look around and wonder... "Are we all just following google?"
I'd wager that over 90% are. It literally go's from me driving the route all by myself to me driving in an endless caravan of car's once Waze starts recommending the route. For this route, it's not even just Waze. Apple recommends the route as well.
> It is for this reason I don't let any apps track my commute to work.
That doesn't seem like it would do you any good. Either other people on the road are reporting their speed and location to Waze (in which case your resistance is futile), or no one is, in which case Waze will presumably assume that there is no traffic on the road and send more people down it.
That doesn't seem like it would do you any good. Either other people on the road are reporting their speed and location to Waze (in which case your resistance is futile), or no one is, in which case Waze will presumably assume that there is no traffic on the road and send more people down it.
I live in Los Angeles. Waze only learns a new route if you teach it a route. One time I was stuck in the hills in the Valley and traffic was particularly awful. It kept re-routing, and I was wondering why it wasn't sending me on a particular route, so I decided to go that way. Well, next day the route is full of people. This has happened a few times.
So now I have routes that I know and purposely do not share with any of these apps. I make everyone in the car turn off Waze, Google, etc. If I am in an Uber or Lyft, I will just sit there. I once shared a route with an Uber driver and it's now filled with Wazers. I also have routes where I ignore the no turn signs but Waze respects those so I don't care.
So now I have routes that I know and purposely do not share with any of these apps. I make everyone in the car turn off Waze, Google, etc. If I am in an Uber or Lyft, I will just sit there. I once shared a route with an Uber driver and it's now filled with Wazers. I also have routes where I ignore the no turn signs but Waze respects those so I don't care.
Travel time isn't everything. Negotiating a series of scenic turns is often more pleasant than inching along on the highway, even if the latter takes less time.
That sounds nice in theory, but since everyone uses navigation apps, in practice you are just going to inch along bumper to bumper on the "scenic" route.
Very true. I live in a similarly large city and every time I try to "outsmart" Google Maps it ends up going terribly for me. I've just accepted that Google always knows best -- if it's recommending some dark-red highway it really is the best way to go.
It seems to me that Waze isn't the problem. I've seen very similar problems where I live. When the freeway gets backed up, as it inevitably does, traffic spills out into awfully designed city streets.
I once got stuck in small neighborhood for 2 hours while the freeway was backed up and that was before Waze existed.
In Southern California we have massive urban sprawl most of which is filled with cul-de-sacs within cul-de-sacs. Waze isn't the problem it's just exacerbating it.
I once got stuck in small neighborhood for 2 hours while the freeway was backed up and that was before Waze existed.
In Southern California we have massive urban sprawl most of which is filled with cul-de-sacs within cul-de-sacs. Waze isn't the problem it's just exacerbating it.
You've come closest to the true point.
The root cause of the traffic problem is the interrelated web of: Sprawl, civic planning failures (insufficient housing near jobs), lack of stable careers (getting long term housing near long term jobs), and generally too many people needing to move too far due to inefficiencies in our society.
The root cause of the traffic problem is the interrelated web of: Sprawl, civic planning failures (insufficient housing near jobs), lack of stable careers (getting long term housing near long term jobs), and generally too many people needing to move too far due to inefficiencies in our society.
But usually people don't go into neighborhoods they don't know. Locals might cut through a city but others won't. Now, with Waze and Google, literally everyone can cut through a city even though they've never been there.
This is the problem: these roads weren't build for it and the neighbors are left with busy streets, noise pollution and an increase in traffic.
This is the problem: these roads weren't build for it and the neighbors are left with busy streets, noise pollution and an increase in traffic.
> But usually people don't go into neighborhoods they don't know. Locals might cut through a city but others won't.
But they do, if the jam is big enough. Traffic signs literally exist to allow it - their job is to tell you how to navigate roads you don't know. All it takes to detour through a neighbourhood you don't know is paying attention and having a little patience.
But they do, if the jam is big enough. Traffic signs literally exist to allow it - their job is to tell you how to navigate roads you don't know. All it takes to detour through a neighbourhood you don't know is paying attention and having a little patience.
But aren't those public roads, made for everyone to use?
"Have access to" and "drive down at 35" are different things. Parks are public but you may not be able to enter one if there's some event and its massively over capacity.
In this light Elon Musk's Boring Company seems more reasonable.
The article tries to paint Waze as an "evil" corporation, but to me it sounds like they haven't perfected their algorithms yet. If Waze reroutes 1,000 cars to a shortcut that can only handle 100, that's idiotic and does not provide a good service to users. But if their algorithms took the road's capacity into account, everyone would benefit since there would be no "synthetic" traffic jams.
In my experience traffic apps are imperfect and even dangerous:
- Waze sent me once to a shortcut via a very shady neighborhood
- Google drove me through an alley so narrow that I had to fold the side mirrors in order to pass
- Google twice tried to put me on a toll-road ramp that could only be used by electronic pass holders. As a tourist, I didn't have one.
That said, these apps provide huge value by telling you about road conditions (e.g. accidents) and routing you around them, estimating your ETA, and telling you how to get to your destination even if you miss a turn. I would not want to go back to the old way of navigating using paper maps and just hoping for the best...
In my experience traffic apps are imperfect and even dangerous:
- Waze sent me once to a shortcut via a very shady neighborhood
- Google drove me through an alley so narrow that I had to fold the side mirrors in order to pass
- Google twice tried to put me on a toll-road ramp that could only be used by electronic pass holders. As a tourist, I didn't have one.
That said, these apps provide huge value by telling you about road conditions (e.g. accidents) and routing you around them, estimating your ETA, and telling you how to get to your destination even if you miss a turn. I would not want to go back to the old way of navigating using paper maps and just hoping for the best...
But if their algorithms took the road's capacity into account...
As the secondary and tertiary roads start to back up, wouldn't Waze start to direct people back onto the primary road for the same reasons it started directing them off the primary?
The problem isn't Waze, or Google, or sat-nav in general. The problem is LA (and most of the US) has massively under-invested in urban planning and infrastructure. More housing built closer to work hubs. More transit options.
The part that really rustles my jimmies is none of the rest of the US seems to have learned anything from California's mistakes. As new areas grow, they seem to repeat the same failures that California made in the 1960s.
As the secondary and tertiary roads start to back up, wouldn't Waze start to direct people back onto the primary road for the same reasons it started directing them off the primary?
The problem isn't Waze, or Google, or sat-nav in general. The problem is LA (and most of the US) has massively under-invested in urban planning and infrastructure. More housing built closer to work hubs. More transit options.
The part that really rustles my jimmies is none of the rest of the US seems to have learned anything from California's mistakes. As new areas grow, they seem to repeat the same failures that California made in the 1960s.
> But if their algorithms took the road's capacity into account, everyone would benefit
The people getting extra non-resident traffic on residential streets don't benefit.
But let's ignore them and look only at current drivers. It's quite possible for routing even one car through shortcut neighborhoods to be a net negative, because they have to spend time leaving and merging back with the main traffic flow.
The people getting extra non-resident traffic on residential streets don't benefit.
But let's ignore them and look only at current drivers. It's quite possible for routing even one car through shortcut neighborhoods to be a net negative, because they have to spend time leaving and merging back with the main traffic flow.
>The people getting extra non-resident traffic on residential streets don't benefit.
Those streets being public roads, they don't have any right to exlusively using them. Furthermore, a public resource should be used efficiently.
Those streets being public roads, they don't have any right to exlusively using them. Furthermore, a public resource should be used efficiently.
It's not just "roads". There are arterial roads, collector roads, and local roads. Everyone is allowed to use them, but everyone is supposed to use them for their actual purpose. The lowest tier of road is only supposed to be used for the first/last mile of a trip. It is not "efficient" use to pretend all roads are arterial.
I've started to avoid using GPS navigation whenever possible for these reasons. Navigation is a valuable skill and using GPS means you don't develop it or forget it. I've noticed a strange phenomenon where people will listen to the GPS even if they know it's not right. It's better to learn to navigate.
I find GPS most useful if I already know the route -- it can give me advance notice of traffic out of my vision, or it can tell me which of two routes will be faster (an example is picking either the car or truck lanes, or east or west spur of the NJ Turnpike, which has multiple mostly-parallel routes).
In cases where I don't know where I'm going, I try to set any GPS app to keep to freeways and arterial roads when possible, since those tend to signed the best.
In cases where I don't know where I'm going, I try to set any GPS app to keep to freeways and arterial roads when possible, since those tend to signed the best.
At this point it seems meaningful to describe behavior as "evil" if it's relatively easy to identify that your algorithm is working badly or producing bad/dangerous outcomes but still leave it running as-is. Do small scale tests until it's fixed instead. Driving cars is dangerous as-is, it's not going to be great to send thousands of people down residential roads that might be less safe than arterial roads AND make them drive worse by frustrating them with bad traffic.
I share your experiences with Google Maps and Waze giving me bad or actively dangerous directions. I learned to distrust those apps as a result.
I share your experiences with Google Maps and Waze giving me bad or actively dangerous directions. I learned to distrust those apps as a result.
I guess you bare no responsibility for blindly following google? Ridiculous that we just accept people driving these dangerous 2 tonne vehicles everywhere for their own selfish reasons.
Of course the responsibility lies with the driver, and he/she should take the driving instructions with a grain of salt. But often while driving you do not have time to think about it for more than a second before having to decide whether to take the turn or not. Furthermore, you don't even know in advance whether the turn will lead you to a dangerous location. And when driving in an unfamiliar foreign country, your reliance on navigation apps is almost absolute.
The examples I listed do not bode well for self-driving cars: if they rely on incomplete navigation maps/databases, they will make wrong navigation decisions and possibly lead the passengers into danger or a dead-end (such as an alley that's too narrow for the vehicle to traverse).
The examples I listed do not bode well for self-driving cars: if they rely on incomplete navigation maps/databases, they will make wrong navigation decisions and possibly lead the passengers into danger or a dead-end (such as an alley that's too narrow for the vehicle to traverse).
Why do we have a shady neighbourhood in the first place? Does no one care about a place unless they drive through it?
I'm always surprised when people blame L.A. traffic on Waze rather than a lack of transportation infrastructure in the city. After all, maps existed before Waze and people could have used these shortcuts the entire time.
When these articles show up now and again, it’s not clear to me why the various impacted cities don’t choose to ban through traffic. Some articles have implied that this is not possible. Los Altos did this a while back[1]. Is there a legal issue the communities surrounding Los Angeles want to avoid, that Los Altos simply took the risk on?
[1] https://slate.com/business/2017/06/suburbs-finally-figured-o...
[1] https://slate.com/business/2017/06/suburbs-finally-figured-o...
It turns out than bans on through traffic aren't legally enforceable. The signs are merely advisory.
A "no thru traffic" sign may not be legally enforceable, and it's certainly difficult to enforce just from a practical perspective.
But physically making the street not be a through street is possible. Just plop down a couple of Jersey walls and you're done.
Check out how Vancouver made semlin, grant, and gravely forcibly "no thru traffic" here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/DFVJNDF2DftbFzpv9
But physically making the street not be a through street is possible. Just plop down a couple of Jersey walls and you're done.
Check out how Vancouver made semlin, grant, and gravely forcibly "no thru traffic" here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/DFVJNDF2DftbFzpv9
My hometown did this in the late 90's, added three barriers across intersections to cut a neighborhood in half. Here's someone recently suggesting removing them to alleviate traffic on the main north/south road (under construction for the last two years or so), but I doubt anything would happen to them:
https://www.centredaily.com/news/local/community/state-colle...
Traffic bound for North Atherton (bottom left of map) has to go down to the intersection with Park instead of taking Allen.
Easy enough to take a bike through them, I used to ride that way regularly in to campus. But I think it's worked well to not have cars shortcutting through the neighborhood at high speeds.
https://www.centredaily.com/news/local/community/state-colle...
Traffic bound for North Atherton (bottom left of map) has to go down to the intersection with Park instead of taking Allen.
Easy enough to take a bike through them, I used to ride that way regularly in to campus. But I think it's worked well to not have cars shortcutting through the neighborhood at high speeds.
On the street near me there are just chikanes every 100 metres or so, that massively discourages people from using it for using it as a shortcut, because at rush hours the chikanes become a massive pain in the ass:
https://www.google.com/maps/@55.101503,-1.584329,3a,75y,42.5...
https://www.google.com/maps/@55.101503,-1.584329,3a,75y,42.5...
Aren't you then trapping the residents who live on that street in?
Yep, that seems to be supported by this article[1].
https://padailypost.com/2017/11/17/traffic-complaints-to-res...
https://padailypost.com/2017/11/17/traffic-complaints-to-res...
Woah.
Can state law change this, or is this a federal funding requirement? (I can't imagine it's a constitutional requirement. Plenty of publicly-funded services from food stamps to the restrooms at Area 51 have restrictions on which members of the general public can use them.)
Can state law change this, or is this a federal funding requirement? (I can't imagine it's a constitutional requirement. Plenty of publicly-funded services from food stamps to the restrooms at Area 51 have restrictions on which members of the general public can use them.)
In some areas governments put up signs like this without stopping to complete the triviality of actually passing a law allowing them to do so.
Whereas there might be nothing whatsoever wrong with such a law you can't legally fine or arrest people for not following instructions you were never legally authorized to give. Essentially anything you put on a sign doesn't gain the force of law.
Example GA went through some drama regarding that notably their local chief of police publicly stated
http://dunwoodynorth.blogspot.com/2017/12/dunwoody-homeowner...
residents in my neighborhood were looking for relief from this cut thru issue along with more enforcement of speeding, stop sign violations and trucks also cutting thru. I reached out to Chief Grogan to share the neighbors concerns and asked that he have the Dunwoody legal staff research the legality of enforcing the "No thru Traffic" on public streets as I personally see the issue as unenforceable.
I wouldn't be surprised if some neighborhoods or property owners also put up fake signs. Wouldn't be the first time.
Occasionally with less selfish motives
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kbnzvw/fake-street-sign-i...
Whereas there might be nothing whatsoever wrong with such a law you can't legally fine or arrest people for not following instructions you were never legally authorized to give. Essentially anything you put on a sign doesn't gain the force of law.
Example GA went through some drama regarding that notably their local chief of police publicly stated
http://dunwoodynorth.blogspot.com/2017/12/dunwoody-homeowner...
residents in my neighborhood were looking for relief from this cut thru issue along with more enforcement of speeding, stop sign violations and trucks also cutting thru. I reached out to Chief Grogan to share the neighbors concerns and asked that he have the Dunwoody legal staff research the legality of enforcing the "No thru Traffic" on public streets as I personally see the issue as unenforceable.
I wouldn't be surprised if some neighborhoods or property owners also put up fake signs. Wouldn't be the first time.
Occasionally with less selfish motives
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/kbnzvw/fake-street-sign-i...
I see a lot of streets where I live that have signs saying no trucks except local delivery. I wonder at what level that is instituted and enforced.
> it’s not clear to me why the various impacted cities don’t choose to ban through traffic
Can you physically turn the streets into cul-de-sacs? Where I live a lot of domestic streets are cul-de-sacs presumably to prevent too many people driving past.
Can you physically turn the streets into cul-de-sacs? Where I live a lot of domestic streets are cul-de-sacs presumably to prevent too many people driving past.
My small town did this 20 or 30 years ago with a number of residential streets that were commonly [ab]used for shortcuts. They erected barriers that consist of a curb across the roadway and a series of three or four "no entry" and "dead end" signs. Inconvenient, but it stops through traffic.
Tucson and Phoenix have another alternative. The cities are built with the main roads being a large grid. Subdivision roads are twisty and higgledy-piggledy. It's almost always too inefficient to cut through a subdivision to bother trying.
Tucson and Phoenix have another alternative. The cities are built with the main roads being a large grid. Subdivision roads are twisty and higgledy-piggledy. It's almost always too inefficient to cut through a subdivision to bother trying.
Actually can you just put traffic-triggered off-by-default red lights, similar to the ones used on highway on-ramps to trickle cars in during rush hour?
If only one or two cars are seen on the road, turn the light off. If more than that, turn it on and allow one car per green every several seconds. It will reduce throughput enough that Waze will automatically route away from it (and eventually Waze editors will have to figure out how to encode it) without affecting normal residential traffic.
For whatever reason, people don't always care about speed limits but they usually don't run red lights.
If only one or two cars are seen on the road, turn the light off. If more than that, turn it on and allow one car per green every several seconds. It will reduce throughput enough that Waze will automatically route away from it (and eventually Waze editors will have to figure out how to encode it) without affecting normal residential traffic.
For whatever reason, people don't always care about speed limits but they usually don't run red lights.
I don't understand why "on-ramp" metered lights aren't used in many more places.
Like enforcing easy zipper merging. Put lights on both lanes that need to merge together, out there in the middle of the freeway. Turn them off when there's no traffic.
Like enforcing easy zipper merging. Put lights on both lanes that need to merge together, out there in the middle of the freeway. Turn them off when there's no traffic.
[deleted]
That is interesting... metered off ramps. I could see them putting one at the Eastbound 101 exit for Haskell. I see very few people exit there while I'm stuck in traffic waiting to get on the 405. I'm sure a significant number of people are following waze (it often suggests I go that way to save 4 minutes).
Around my area in Sydney a few new street signs have been popping up banning traffic from driving through at certain times of the day, without actually changing the roads. The signs say for example 'No right turn 7am-10am' which is when morning traffic sneaks into the side street to get to the CBD faster.
Then I got to sit on my balcony for 6 weeks watching the traffic cops ticket one car after the other until they stopped catching people.
Then I got to sit on my balcony for 6 weeks watching the traffic cops ticket one car after the other until they stopped catching people.
You can install what’s called “Modal Filters”: A series of barriers that lets pedestrians and cycles pass, but blocks cars. This slightly inconveniences local traffic, but blocks through traffic.
Near my downtown side-streets there are temporary barriers that you can actually drive around (but you know you're going against what the sign says).
I presume enforcement is always an option.
Another point, on my street there used to be horrible backup right in front of my house, but once the light near the school nearby went to a half-duplex mode, apps stopped recommending it as a sure bet shortcut. Once that happened traffic lowered considerably.
I presume enforcement is always an option.
Another point, on my street there used to be horrible backup right in front of my house, but once the light near the school nearby went to a half-duplex mode, apps stopped recommending it as a sure bet shortcut. Once that happened traffic lowered considerably.
If the signs prohibit passage, Waze wouldn't be able to use that (legally invalid) route, would it?
Waze and Google Maps tend to have bad/outdated data and tell people to make illegal turns. The roads near my apartment changed over a year ago and I still see people make illegal left turns (including Lyft drivers unless I warn them about it in advance).
Speed bumps go a long way too by dropping the effective speed.
Speed is a huge problem. I make sure I don't go more than 25 through one of the shortcuts I take through a residential area and when Waze starts sending people down these roads they are extremely aggressive behind me. I'm guessing they'd be driving 40 to 50 if I wasn't in their way which is pointless because the route ends in a long line of car's trying to make a turn. When I was young I used to ride my bike through these neighborhoods - I'd be surprised if parents felt comfortable letting there kids do the same today.
Getting a speed bump added to your street is nearly impossible in LA. I lived on a street that badly needed one. It was a double length block paralleling Wilshire, so frequently used as a bypass with many speeding drivers. I looked up the process for requesting a speed bump. They only take so many requests per year, so I had to wait a few months for the request form to open up. I marked my calendar and when the date came it required that you get signatures from 50% of the residents on your street. Since my street was almost entirely apartment buildings and a double length block, this would have been hundreds of people. I gave up. I no longer live there.
My city seems to do this with more unorthodox methods: cheap out on road maintenance and engineering.
Oh sure, take that side street with all of the sunken sewer grates.
My mom’s street was riddled with potholes. We were happy when they repaved it, but blew it when they put up speed bumps.
Oh sure, take that side street with all of the sunken sewer grates.
My mom’s street was riddled with potholes. We were happy when they repaved it, but blew it when they put up speed bumps.
This is partly because drivers aren't actually paying there way, and are subsidised by others a ridiculous amount.
And by raising the aggravation and discomfort levels. Some people will avoid streets with speed bumps if they can find an alternate route because they dislike them so much.
Yes, in my neck of the woods they cut off some roads used as rat runs by installing bollards. Pedestrians and bikes can still go through but car no longer can.
Yes, Portland added diverters to some of its neighborhood Greenway routes, that forcibly divert car traffic (walking and biking can still get through). It was done for basically what's talked about in the article, too many cars using local residential roads for commuting.
Really, this is a design problem with the streets and lack of effective public transportation. LA brought this onto itself.
Really, this is a design problem with the streets and lack of effective public transportation. LA brought this onto itself.
They made a decision not to make the roads objectively worse to thwart abusers. I think calling that a design problem they brought on themselves is unfair.
It's not objectively worse, any more than road diets make streets objectively worse, or sidewalks, or protected bike lanes, or speed limits. Making roads worse for through traffic makes them better for other uses. It comes down to what your priorities are, and right now, through design, they're choosing to prioritize the very through traffic they're complaining about.
It's not unfair, and it's accurate. The design decisions the area chose as a whole, like handicapping public transportation, led to this situation. With robust public transit, you wouldn't have a huge flood of desperate car commuters driven to find any possible shortcut.
It's not unfair, and it's accurate. The design decisions the area chose as a whole, like handicapping public transportation, led to this situation. With robust public transit, you wouldn't have a huge flood of desperate car commuters driven to find any possible shortcut.
Road diets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and (correctly done) speed limits all have very nice features.
Blocking exits does not in any way improve the road itself.
It just inconveniences people that are improperly cutting through more than normal drivers.
The fact that through traffic is technically possible does not mean it is 'prioritized'.
Blocking exits does not in any way improve the road itself.
It just inconveniences people that are improperly cutting through more than normal drivers.
The fact that through traffic is technically possible does not mean it is 'prioritized'.
> Blocking exits does not in any way improve the road itself.
Incorrect. It improves the conditions of the road for local drivers, as well cyclists and pedestrians. Which is exactly why Portland did it. Unless you have an alternative explanation?
> The fact that through traffic is technically possible does not mean it is 'prioritized'.
It shows that they've prioritized enabling through traffic over other concerns.
It's not all that different from road diets. Road diets usually reduce the carrying capacity of the road, making it "objectively worse", in your parlance, in the service of other goals. Diverters accomplish a similar function.
Incorrect. It improves the conditions of the road for local drivers, as well cyclists and pedestrians. Which is exactly why Portland did it. Unless you have an alternative explanation?
> The fact that through traffic is technically possible does not mean it is 'prioritized'.
It shows that they've prioritized enabling through traffic over other concerns.
It's not all that different from road diets. Road diets usually reduce the carrying capacity of the road, making it "objectively worse", in your parlance, in the service of other goals. Diverters accomplish a similar function.
Road diets arguably make the road nicer to be on.
Blocking exits only fixes things through second order effects. The direct effect is negative. If we could stop through traffic via other means, we wouldn't want to block exits, but we would still want bike lanes and speed limits and road diets in residential areas.
Blocking exits only fixes things through second order effects. The direct effect is negative. If we could stop through traffic via other means, we wouldn't want to block exits, but we would still want bike lanes and speed limits and road diets in residential areas.
Yes, just add a barrier only allowing bikes and pedestrians through.
There’s one in Los Gatos, I believe, where they did this partially. Cars can empty on to the larger street, but can’t enter from the that direction.
It can be controversial. It can pit the wealthy against the working class: a well-off hillside neighborhood may demand that its streets be off-limits to through traffic. But this would mean that another, poorer neighborhood's residents are denied an important route to work. And the question comes up: aren't these public streets? Don't the streets belong to everyone?
Menlo Park has a few streets labeled local traffic only as well.
Palo Alto has quite a few as well. Some are just marked with signs, many have physical barriers allowing only bikes and large trash collection vehicles to easily pass.
Is there an example of these? I'm having a hard time picturing how a barrier can allow bikes and large traffic to pass whilst blocking other traffic.
There are barriers that restrict traffic based on dimensions - such as the 'bus trap' [1] that only allows wide vehicles, and the 'sump buster' [2] that only allows high-ground-clearance vehicles through.
Of course, these have the disadvantage that (a) they damage the cars of confused motorists [6] (b) cars stuck in traps obstruct busses anyway[5], and (c) large SUVs and pick-up trucks can drive over them anyway [4].
Another option is a powered rising bollard [3] or barrier together with some mechanism (tag, ANPR, keypad) for recognising authorised vehicles. Which avoids a lot of those weaknesses - at the cost of power and maintenance.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_trap [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sump_buster [3] https://goo.gl/maps/epSrQ2641m6ccf6cA [4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-22352... [5] https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manches... [6] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-22/car-blocks-o-bahn-for...
Of course, these have the disadvantage that (a) they damage the cars of confused motorists [6] (b) cars stuck in traps obstruct busses anyway[5], and (c) large SUVs and pick-up trucks can drive over them anyway [4].
Another option is a powered rising bollard [3] or barrier together with some mechanism (tag, ANPR, keypad) for recognising authorised vehicles. Which avoids a lot of those weaknesses - at the cost of power and maintenance.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_trap [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sump_buster [3] https://goo.gl/maps/epSrQ2641m6ccf6cA [4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-22352... [5] https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manches... [6] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-22/car-blocks-o-bahn-for...
A fair stretch of Bryant St. is bike-limited, with narrow barriers every few blocks.
I used it in my bike commute from Sunnyvale to Menlo (which also used pedestrian/bike bridges that cross the creeks that define the Mtn View / Palo Alto and Palo / Menlo borders).
I used it in my bike commute from Sunnyvale to Menlo (which also used pedestrian/bike bridges that cross the creeks that define the Mtn View / Palo Alto and Palo / Menlo borders).
You can blame traffic apps, but in reality it's just a democratization of knowledge. Locals already knew the best way to evade a traffic, now outsiders know it too.
I'm not sure if it is a cultural thing or different problem scales but the whole complaint strikes me as massive narcissistic self-entitlement to public resources.
In my northeastern experience everyone uses neighborhoods as shortcuts when the normally faster roads are congested enough that it is faster in spite of the lower speed limit and increased stops.
In my northeastern experience everyone uses neighborhoods as shortcuts when the normally faster roads are congested enough that it is faster in spite of the lower speed limit and increased stops.
I try to minimize not total driving time, but something I call "agony" (term borrowed from Hipmunk). So, I'll take meandering side streets over a stop-and-go highway if it means I'm moving most of the time, even if the total wallclock time is greater. Or I'll take 3 right turns to avoid a harrowing left hand turn. Anything that keeps my blood pressure down. AKA, "long cuts."
Assuming there are at least some out there who feel the same, it occurred to me once to try to publish/monetize these agony free routes but I realized it'd pretty much instantly lead to the Waze problem.
Assuming there are at least some out there who feel the same, it occurred to me once to try to publish/monetize these agony free routes but I realized it'd pretty much instantly lead to the Waze problem.
Yes! Something here in Boston that Google and Waze never take into account is that there are some left turns that at rush hour that can really only be accomplished by the most aggressive drivers. Sorry, I'm not doing that.
I don't understand why they don't fix either one so it stops giving you left turns onto busy highways at intersections without traffic lights. It's just idiotic. And surely there are already guidance systems for delivery companies that optimize routes with all right turns. That would be a nice checkbox option along with avoiding tolls.
I don't participate in "stop and go" by positioning my car far back from the car in front and selecting an appropriate gear such that my car will keep rolling with just the engine idle. It means you don't waste any fuel or clutch actuations and it's just much easier.
until some genius decides to switch to your lane to get further ahead in life a whole 3 yards.
Don't worry about it. It's easier to just stay in gear than try to compete with everyone else trying to get a car length ahead. If you have to go through such an ordeal every day then reducing stress should be your main priority.
The comedian Pete Holmes has a bit about Waze that is extremely relevant to this article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuDCxQdsbmc
Not often you see Conan upstaged. Great bit, appreciate the sentiment of enjoyment over efficiency. I have been seeing that reflection more and more lately.
"It maybe works in Arkansas..." great line to fade out on
LA is a very strange place to me - I read about all this havoc, but whenever I fly in there and do stuff it seems fairly quiet and almost somnabulent.
Try commuting into the greater LA area during rush hour. It’s really something else.
Once I was taking my then-fiancé to LAX for an 11:30am flight. About 2-3 hours into the drive, we were on the 105 in completely stopped traffic. A man in a convertible next to us began to absolutely lose it, smacking the steering wheel with loud, desperate yelling “ARRGH!!” again and again. We decided he must have been late to a mandatory child custody hearing and would lose the right to see his kids—or something equally life-shattering.
There’s nothing like LA gridlock to give you a sense of utter powerlessness.
Once I was taking my then-fiancé to LAX for an 11:30am flight. About 2-3 hours into the drive, we were on the 105 in completely stopped traffic. A man in a convertible next to us began to absolutely lose it, smacking the steering wheel with loud, desperate yelling “ARRGH!!” again and again. We decided he must have been late to a mandatory child custody hearing and would lose the right to see his kids—or something equally life-shattering.
There’s nothing like LA gridlock to give you a sense of utter powerlessness.
I have never tried to drive into NYC, but when I think back on being there, there were a lot of cars...I guess. So someone drives there, and lots of them. I don't want to, but I wonder what it's like, and just how the people in the parking spaces managed to obtain them.
The traffic in NYC is bad but I think there is more of a natural equilibrium that arises from the fact that if traffic gets bad enough, some portion of people will switch to the alternatives (public transport, biking, even walking), making traffic less terrible and equalizing everything. People don't really have that option in Los Angeles so it seems everyone is just stuck driving.
This was my impression when I visited. I was entirely taken by how genuinely drivable the place was. The traffic was all quite tolerable, far better than what I regularly encounter in Minneapolis.
LA is quite fine if you don't have to go very far and can stay on local streets.
However, if you have to switch enclaves by crossing one of the choke points, you will get hammered by traffic.
However, if you have to switch enclaves by crossing one of the choke points, you will get hammered by traffic.
Have you ever been on the 405?!
Not talked about here - that the upper (and middle) class intentionally built their communities to be minimally accessible to keep the riffraff out. That of course making the traffic hell that people are trying to get away from. Nobody can live near where they work because they can’t afford it. Traffic is as much a housing and economic problem as it is an engineering one.
Or because the communities were built before car culture totally took over the area. I think it's more dependent on geography/geology.
Some of these gnarly streets are in places like the Hollywood Hills, where people try and get around the chokepoint that is created by the Sepulveda pass. But plenty of them are in working class neighborhoods like Echo Park, like this very steep street: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-echo-pa...
Some of these gnarly streets are in places like the Hollywood Hills, where people try and get around the chokepoint that is created by the Sepulveda pass. But plenty of them are in working class neighborhoods like Echo Park, like this very steep street: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lopez-echo-pa...
This is a function of living in an unlivable city -- not technology.
It is physically impossible for there to be enough roads to move 14 million SUVs to and from home each day.
It is physically impossible for there to be enough roads to move 14 million SUVs to and from home each day.
more like a function of driving in a place that physically can't accommodate the sheer number of cars. the city could be very livable if public transport was the better option than a private car.
[deleted]
I did a quick search on the relationship between traffic systems and Nash's Equilibrium and ran across this. A good read.
https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-book/netwo...
https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/networks-book/netwo...
I had no idea Waze was powered by anon crowd sourced map editors. If anybody here is doing it, what's the motivation? Personally I'd never disclose my shortcuts or free parking spots.
Not quite the same thing but I've contributed a correction to Google maps before. My motivation was that my address on maps was in the middle of a cornfield and I was tired of explaining exactly where my house really was when new people came over.
Google maps and Apple maps traffic is cross sourced anonymously too
Interesting, so you're suggesting that the Google and Apple navigation apps are also crowd-sourced social networks like Waze? If that's true I wonder why Waze is singled out for these types of articles.
AFAIK, this is not really accurate; Google Maps, Apple Maps, and Waze often pick different routes between the same two points at the same time of day in my (admittedly informal) experiments. Google and Apple pretty consistently favored major roads unless there were serious traffic backups on them, while during anything remotely resembling commuting hour, Waze was frequently acting like your crazy uncle who swears taking 28 residential roads, two of which are unpaved and the last of which is an alleyway that ends in an unprotected left turn across three lanes of dense traffic, is clearly the best route.
(And while that's an exaggeration, Waze has consistently been far more likely to send me down unpaved roads, ridiculously steep hills, and, yes, unprotected left turns onto busy highways, presumably because the residential road I was on was lower traffic than the parallel road one block away with traffic lights.)
(And while that's an exaggeration, Waze has consistently been far more likely to send me down unpaved roads, ridiculously steep hills, and, yes, unprotected left turns onto busy highways, presumably because the residential road I was on was lower traffic than the parallel road one block away with traffic lights.)
That was similar to my experience but I haven't used it in several years, shortly after the Google acquisition my account broke. Waze seemed to want to route me through school zones all the time. Google Navigate didn't seem to suffer from this quirk. It never occurred to me that those quirky routes could be due to competition in an anon social network ranking contest.
Waze feels more like a social network. You get a little cartoon car avatar to represent you and can see other people's avatars on the map. There is a leveling/experience system for your character. Waze also allows the user to manually share the location of speed traps and red light cameras.
Sounds like the tragedy of the commons.
How did you imagine it worked?
They know where all their users are, so they can see people moving down the main road are moving slower than people using the side roads. I wouldn't expect them to have actual human editors for this stuff.
L.A. has been a shortcut city for a very long time. It is almost 50 years since I resided there; back then good shortcuts got mentioned in the gossip columns, and magazine articles were written about great shortcuts. The difference now is that the solutions are newer, high-tech, and more expensive, but the problem is much worse.
Yes, the same thing happens in Belgium and the Netherlands. Waze, Google Maps et al. will route traffic through any road they can find if it saves times.
But neighborhoods are left with all the negatives. Is it really worth it to route hundreds of vehicles through a small street with a school just to save drivers 1 minute of their time?
But neighborhoods are left with all the negatives. Is it really worth it to route hundreds of vehicles through a small street with a school just to save drivers 1 minute of their time?
The obvious solutions seem to be either:
1. Add enough speedbumps, unsynchronized traffic lights or even unnecessary timed barriers to make the route slow enough that it's no longer optimal
2. Add cameras that fine anyone who doesn't have a permit to pass, which would be given to residents for free and anyone who pays a sufficiently high price
1. Add enough speedbumps, unsynchronized traffic lights or even unnecessary timed barriers to make the route slow enough that it's no longer optimal
2. Add cameras that fine anyone who doesn't have a permit to pass, which would be given to residents for free and anyone who pays a sufficiently high price
that would make sense if those were private roads. public roads belong to the public. I have the right to use the road in your neighborhood just as much as you do.
As is well known to any homeowner, typically anyone who owns property has certain responsibilities to care for the public property adjoining it. For instance, you have to clear snow off in a timely manner where I live. Isn't it logical that if you have responsibilities for public property next to where you live, that you may also have some rights as well?
I think you are assuming a naive dichotomy between public and private that doesn't reflect the way things actually work.
I think you are assuming a naive dichotomy between public and private that doesn't reflect the way things actually work.
I often wonder if we ought to try to double the US's highway capacity. It's pretty obvious that the American appetite for public transportation is pretty low, and that car ownership in our continent is here to stay. Why not lean into that, focus on the roads, build bus lanes for public transit?
I remember a long time ago reading an article about the bus system in Curitiba, Brazil, which supposedly was innovative and worked particularly well at a much lower cost than subways, but more efficiently than most buses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rede_Integrada_de_Transporte
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rede_Integrada_de_Transporte
A Waze spokesman, oblivious to the irony,
reflexively sneered that “a group of neighbors can’t game the system.”
[Ryu] told constituents that Waze would designate a liaison to work with the city, and then the company stopped returning calls.
Krekorian’s office reached out to Waze and the operators of similar apps and got “a complete stonewall,” he says.
Why the pseudonyms? “They all fear legal liability in case of a bigger accident or traffic situation,” suggested one Level 1 editor, who tried to obtain the email and contact information of a higher-level editor to no avail.
The time for "partnering" with arrogant/dismissive/evasive app companies is over. Municipalities and state governments have been dealing with this problem for 5+ years. Why is it taking so long to legislate?
[Ryu] told constituents that Waze would designate a liaison to work with the city, and then the company stopped returning calls.
Krekorian’s office reached out to Waze and the operators of similar apps and got “a complete stonewall,” he says.
Why the pseudonyms? “They all fear legal liability in case of a bigger accident or traffic situation,” suggested one Level 1 editor, who tried to obtain the email and contact information of a higher-level editor to no avail.
The time for "partnering" with arrogant/dismissive/evasive app companies is over. Municipalities and state governments have been dealing with this problem for 5+ years. Why is it taking so long to legislate?
The one solution that no one will fucking mention is to increase road capacity to zoning ratios. The city planners are allowing congestion by allowing density that is too high, then everyone has to fucking drive with 1 million other people in the same space. Also, it doesn't have to be JUST road capacity. Putting in some actual subway capacity would allow the higher densities, but you have special interest groups fighting that shit NON stop.
No one WANTS to take a side street over a freeway. You do it because the freeway is jammed. This means the city planning has FAILED. The money has been misused. I read somewhere that homeless in LA are having housing built for them. Sounds great, right? The cost per unit of housing is something like $450,000 .
No one WANTS to take a side street over a freeway. You do it because the freeway is jammed. This means the city planning has FAILED. The money has been misused. I read somewhere that homeless in LA are having housing built for them. Sounds great, right? The cost per unit of housing is something like $450,000 .
Capacity and congestion is the wrong way to think about traffic planning. The natural response to capacity increases is to accept a longer-distance commute in exchange for lower housing costs. Instead, it's better to think in terms of accessibility - people need to go to work, buy groceries, etc, and the system must be able to accommodate those goals within reasonable amounts of time.
Crucially, this means that it's just as valid to ensure that people live within a fifteen minute walk to a grocery store as it is to ensure that traffic can allow people to drive five miles to the grocery store within fifteen minutes. Density itself can help traffic, so long as it is properly located with respect to jobs and various amenities.
Crucially, this means that it's just as valid to ensure that people live within a fifteen minute walk to a grocery store as it is to ensure that traffic can allow people to drive five miles to the grocery store within fifteen minutes. Density itself can help traffic, so long as it is properly located with respect to jobs and various amenities.
As a side note just want to point out that I had Google Maps route us thru side streets marked with "No Thru Traffic" in a newer neighborhood last week in Myrtle Beach SC area to save 1 min.
This was the first time i encountered this case.
It's interesting to see you post that because I feel like I've read articles where cities in the US have tried the same approach with Google and they generically responded with "Formally change the rules/laws/speeds/whatever and we will follow that but we don't make random, single changes for the whims of the city" (my rephrasing of what they said).
I'm having trouble finding the source but I believe I saw the link here on HN and it was to an article about a city asking for Google's cooperation in regards to a sharp/blind downhill turn or something? Hope that jogs someone else's memory.
I'm having trouble finding the source but I believe I saw the link here on HN and it was to an article about a city asking for Google's cooperation in regards to a sharp/blind downhill turn or something? Hope that jogs someone else's memory.
If the city's failure to prevent gridlock at major intersections across the city is any guide, LA will never get a handle on this problem. It will never have enough DPT and police to enforce any proposed solution.
Can confirm.
When I compare LA traffic to Seattle traffic, I describe the comparison as they are both bad - but LA is much more active driving. You can always get somewhere quicker by zigging left, then zagging right (usually through a neighborhood) because it's built on a grid, where Seattle is more passive traffic because there are choke points everywhere due to water / bridges / non-grid roads, which means zig zagging is not likely to save much time, or possible at all.
When I compare LA traffic to Seattle traffic, I describe the comparison as they are both bad - but LA is much more active driving. You can always get somewhere quicker by zigging left, then zagging right (usually through a neighborhood) because it's built on a grid, where Seattle is more passive traffic because there are choke points everywhere due to water / bridges / non-grid roads, which means zig zagging is not likely to save much time, or possible at all.
This happens in Fremont in the bay area. Its right between 880 and 680 so when one freeway backs up people flood onto the streets to save a few minutes. Also there is a section of Mission blvd that runs parallel to 680 that people started taking as a shortcut. Many of these streets are not designed for that level of traffic. The city resorted to strategically adding some stop signs and "no right turn" signs from what I heard.
Since years I'm surprised that Google maps suggests routes through small roads. This makes no sense, maybe I see a minute but it's so much more stressful to navigate. Big roads are actually built for traffic, there is no point to use small roads for transit traffic. Also it is much more likely to compete with bicycle drivers and pedestrians for road space.
This is an issue on country roads as well. I was driving down to Cinci and Google had me cut from one freeway to the next via some county side roads. We got flicked off by some guy at his house, and from the traffic, it seemed like he was frustrated how many cars were now going down his once quiet road.
This is not the fault of Waze. This is the fault of city planners and the people who live in those houses who have opposed mass transit expansion, and highway expansion. If all else fails we will just go back to making our own routes through neighborhoods and side streets.
[deleted]
Living in Europe, I have yet to see a smart navigation app, which would allow to take into account:
- tolls and fuel consumption (Via Michelin is great at offering 2-3 routes with different and realistic costs, but the app is an ad-nest and their navigator is bad; Here can avoid tolls but the UI is bad; Google Maps is useless if you want to optimize the costs).
- altitude changes (a marginally shorter road which has to climb and descent 1000 m / 3000 ft is not the same as doing extra distance on the flat ground).
- the shape of the road, prefer wider and more direct roads (there are many narrow and extremely curvy roads that can't be driven fast, and some may be very stressful to drive).
- the realistic median speed as an estimator (not the speed limit; sometimes it is set unrealistically high; also do not assume that all tarmac roads are equivalent).
- local and temporary traffic restrictions (respect car-free hours in some areas and restrictions on a particular kind of vehicle or engine).
- eventual stops during long trips
Google Maps is far from an ideal navigation app at this point. The only reason it is used, IMO, is the abysmall UI experience in built-in car navigators. (Anecdotal evidence: I rented a car last week, it took me five minutes to enter destination, and then I couldn't figure out how to interrupt navigation. Eventually just used the phone to drive around).
Tl;dr: Dear Google, Waze, etc., distance is not everything.
- tolls and fuel consumption (Via Michelin is great at offering 2-3 routes with different and realistic costs, but the app is an ad-nest and their navigator is bad; Here can avoid tolls but the UI is bad; Google Maps is useless if you want to optimize the costs).
- altitude changes (a marginally shorter road which has to climb and descent 1000 m / 3000 ft is not the same as doing extra distance on the flat ground).
- the shape of the road, prefer wider and more direct roads (there are many narrow and extremely curvy roads that can't be driven fast, and some may be very stressful to drive).
- the realistic median speed as an estimator (not the speed limit; sometimes it is set unrealistically high; also do not assume that all tarmac roads are equivalent).
- local and temporary traffic restrictions (respect car-free hours in some areas and restrictions on a particular kind of vehicle or engine).
- eventual stops during long trips
Google Maps is far from an ideal navigation app at this point. The only reason it is used, IMO, is the abysmall UI experience in built-in car navigators. (Anecdotal evidence: I rented a car last week, it took me five minutes to enter destination, and then I couldn't figure out how to interrupt navigation. Eventually just used the phone to drive around).
Tl;dr: Dear Google, Waze, etc., distance is not everything.
GPS jammers?
Can't this just be banned? "It is illegal for any individual or corporation to offer a driving route that uses streets designated as "Local" when the travel distance using streets marked as "Express" is shorter. Violators will be assessed a fine of $1000 per route offered."
I feel like I must be missing something because the following potential solutions seem obvious to me:
- Mark a street as "No thru traffic," or charge tolls (via video camera) to vehicles not registered in the neighborhood and not stopping on the street.
- Suspend the driver's license of anyone using Waze, and use that as negotiating leverage with Waze to give edit access to city planners.
What's preventing local/state government from doing so?
- Mark a street as "No thru traffic," or charge tolls (via video camera) to vehicles not registered in the neighborhood and not stopping on the street.
- Suspend the driver's license of anyone using Waze, and use that as negotiating leverage with Waze to give edit access to city planners.
What's preventing local/state government from doing so?
Large annoying Speed bumps are a better solution for the first one, the app will route people even if it's marked as not thru.
The second one is unethical at best, and would certainly require changes to state law - in addition to being somewhat unenforceable.
The second one is unethical at best, and would certainly require changes to state law - in addition to being somewhat unenforceable.
>What's preventing local/state government from doing so?
The fact that actions have consequences and the consequences for those actions fall somewhere on the spectrum between needing to find a new job after the next election cycle and getting tarred and feathered.
We live in a democracy. The people get what they want even if it's not what the "experts" like and/or non-optimal. People don't to deal with draconian state micromanagement of their route choice.
The fact that actions have consequences and the consequences for those actions fall somewhere on the spectrum between needing to find a new job after the next election cycle and getting tarred and feathered.
We live in a democracy. The people get what they want even if it's not what the "experts" like and/or non-optimal. People don't to deal with draconian state micromanagement of their route choice.
Gated communities are not novel. Usually a private organization needs to buy out the streets from the municipality, though.
[deleted]
It will increase load on the bottleneck.
If the government wants to be the big daddy of traffic control then it should also build sufficient lanes to keep the roads moving.
It’s generally accepted that more lanes does not equal less traffic, and can often lead to the opposite effect due to the effect of induced demand [1]. I personally believe providing multiple alternative transport options is more effective but obviously that’s a matter of opinion...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
Serious question but is there a reason more isn't invested in public transport? I've only ever lived in the UK before Tokyo but America is rich enough I don't see why they can't do what those places do.
The major reason seems to be a lack of cultural support. Despite everything, people still largely dislike the idea of public transit. I read a very good article that said to generate interest, transit must preemptively provide better service... its a catch 22
Simple: sprawl and ultra low density. Public transport thrives in areas where a single bus stop serves hundreds or more of people, but in rural areas it's cost-prohibitive.
brewdad(1)
By that logic we shouldn't upgrade internet infrastructure either.
The implicit context of this argument is that space is limited and we can't indefinitely expand roads. We almost certainly can indefinitely lay more fiber.
That said, the logic does apply to wireless spectrum, which is a limited resource. If we allocate enough spectrum that people can replace wired connections, there will definitely be significant and unsustainable demand for even more bands.
That said, the logic does apply to wireless spectrum, which is a limited resource. If we allocate enough spectrum that people can replace wired connections, there will definitely be significant and unsustainable demand for even more bands.
With wireless, you can decrease the number of folks served per station to increase effective bandwidth in an area.
And the idea you can’t build lanes to reduce traffic assumes there is always enough demand to fill up those lanes.
And the idea you can’t build lanes to reduce traffic assumes there is always enough demand to fill up those lanes.
Am I the only one that finds that using that theory to justify not adding capacity is utterly idiotic?
If you add capacity and it ends up being all used up, it just means you didn't add enough and should add even more if possible!
Kind of like saying that in a famine it's useless to provide more food because it's going to be eaten all up anyway since some people are no longer dying of famine...
If you add capacity and it ends up being all used up, it just means you didn't add enough and should add even more if possible!
Kind of like saying that in a famine it's useless to provide more food because it's going to be eaten all up anyway since some people are no longer dying of famine...
There's definitely a balance to be struck (you can't just build lane after lane after lane and expect linear improvement) but yeah, not adding capacity because the capacity will be used is just asinine. It's just something about personally owned vehicles that makes people dumb. Most of those same people wouldn't complain about people using the new capacity if the discussion was about extending bus routes or making subways run more frequently.
No, this canard gets raised in every traffic thread. The real reason why “induced demand” exists is because roads in urban areas are usually so under built that any reasonably good road is crushed by extra users once it is built. If governments actually kept sufficient roads available then there would not be induced demand.
Alternatively, the government should charge all road users a sufficiently high toll to keep the roads moving.
Your counter argument does not account for negative externalities resulting from increase road travel.
Have you ever been to LA? 16 lanes of traffic and still clogged. Poorer air quality. Suburbs miles from work.
Better yet, have you ever been to China? They are already leaning this lesson of induced demand, as have Singapore.
From too-low fuel taxes to too wide roads, driving is far too cheap in the US thanks to these subsidies. Wider highways is not the answer.
In other words, making highways wider not only does not solve congestion, it makes other problems worse in the process.
Have you ever been to LA? 16 lanes of traffic and still clogged. Poorer air quality. Suburbs miles from work.
Better yet, have you ever been to China? They are already leaning this lesson of induced demand, as have Singapore.
From too-low fuel taxes to too wide roads, driving is far too cheap in the US thanks to these subsidies. Wider highways is not the answer.
In other words, making highways wider not only does not solve congestion, it makes other problems worse in the process.
Standing in way of building roads is also destroying potential economic growth. Benefits come with harms; the question is how to balance them.
How many roads have been expanded in the Bay Area? Not many. How has the economic growth been? Substantial.
The future is remote. Unmitigated sprawl is unnecessary and harmful.
The future is remote. Unmitigated sprawl is unnecessary and harmful.
The fact that some growth has happened despite a lack of road-building does not disprove that more growth could have happened if more roads were built.
> it just means you didn't add enough and should add even more if possible!
houston has 16 lane highways and still has traffic. The population density of cities is simply too high to have cars be the primary form of transportation.
houston has 16 lane highways and still has traffic. The population density of cities is simply too high to have cars be the primary form of transportation.
This canard is also used to justify taking taxes meant for road improvement and spending them on dubious public transport schemes. For some reason they are rarely invested in well run commuter buses, for instance.
Traffic doesn’t work like that. You seem to have a mental model where traffic is modeled like a liquid (traffic has a definite volume and does not expand to fill its container) while many studies show traffic behaves more like a gas (traffic expands to fill its container). Basically, more lanes doesn’t mean less traffic, it generally means the same amount of traffic.
Traffic is a liquid in the short term, but becomes like a gas in the long term as the larger container caused routings to change.
This is a really good analogy that i haven't come across before. thanks
[deleted]
We can also hand over the streets to Taggart Toll Roads, would that be better?
Yes, it would.
In London, we have been collaborating with google waze - we provide them with information at the local level. Streets that waze should not use for route finding (e.g. roads with schools) can be blocked for use by Waze. Both local councils and TfL can provide this data.
The main difference between Waze and Google Maps is that Waze uses real time traffic data. There are multiple map providers that do this in London. There is a plan to provide different data to different TfL data consumers in the future to try and get map providers to seperate traffic across roads (at the cost of surrendering absolute truth).
London is also host to discussions of taxing roads - this is unsurprising when the roads are mostly paid for by the cost of the London Underground (LU makes the majority of public transport money, but 80% of revenue goes into road, traffic and bus management). The London Assembly (who supposedly keep the London mayor accountable) have written a paper "London Stalling" to suggest road taxing related to mileage across London. This, they no doubt expect, will cut down the traffic. However, from my understanding of embellished models of Braess' paradox, this will only result in similar traffic (on maybe slightly different roads) with an optimum equilibrium between how good a route is and what the cost of it is - meaning people may just take longer to commute and pay more tax.