Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war • Hacker News Board

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#41

Post by Piskvorrr » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:15 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #11

JoshTriplett wrote: post #5

This quote seems very telling: > It used to be that only locals knew all the cut-through routes, but Google Maps and Waze are letting everyone know So they don't have a problem with people cutting through as long as they're "locals"; it's when the outgroup starts doing the same thing that people get up in arms. If the through traffic is breaking traffic laws, that's a solvable problem. If the street has insufficient…

Local people may know that children live and play there, and drive more cautiously. (I didn't downvote you.)

Whereas to everyone else, the street looks and feels like a many-lane freeway, right? (No. It's just a convenient excuse; artificial stupidity, if you wish: "So I can't go max speed in here, Carmageddon-style? How am I supposed to know that an obviously residential street has residents? Traffic code? I barely know 'er!")

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#42

Post by pjlegato » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:17 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #38

JoshTriplett wrote: post #5

This quote seems very telling: > It used to be that only locals knew all the cut-through routes, but Google Maps and Waze are letting everyone know So they don't have a problem with people cutting through as long as they're "locals"; it's when the outgroup starts doing the same thing that people get up in arms. If the through traffic is breaking traffic laws, that's a solvable problem. If the street has insufficient…

There's a certain amount of irony here that people are complaining about cars clogging up their streets but think nothing of what they do when they're driving through other neighbourhoods, especially more urban ones. Suddenly they get a taste of why people living downtown are not too enthused about highways bringing in more people. A lot of this mess stems from the absurd designs of modern American subdivisions with…

Grids don't help much. Take a look at Google Maps' traffic report of Los Angeles' perfect grid layout during rush hour: the entire grid is usually solid red, almost every day.

Like most other plans for ameliorating heavy traffic, it is somewhat effective for a short time, but it soon just causes that many more cars to try to drive through the area.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#43

Post by Piskvorrr » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:17 PM UTC

dagss wrote: post #14

JoshTriplett wrote: post #5

This quote seems very telling: > It used to be that only locals knew all the cut-through routes, but Google Maps and Waze are letting everyone know So they don't have a problem with people cutting through as long as they're "locals"; it's when the outgroup starts doing the same thing that people get up in arms. If the through traffic is breaking traffic laws, that's a solvable problem. If the street has insufficient…

I would think the problem is the volume of traffic faced by pedestrians and neighbors, not specifically who drives. Many roads are simply suitable for moderate traffic. "Solving the problem" in this case often involves a roadblock in the middle so that you cannot drive through. Compared to changing Waze, this is "fair". But are you really happier then?

Usually, yes. Car traffic flows like a liquid: anywhere it can, not where it ought to; the road is not blocked off to access - to cars, it just becomes two leaves instead of an edge, i.e. unroutable except for destination traffic.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#44

Post by mmoche » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:18 PM UTC

HillaryBriss wrote: post #30

paulddraper wrote: post #4

If it's faster to take a neighborhood street than the interstate , there's a problem. It's not normal. It sounds like residents are at war with transportation infrastructure instead.

There seems to be a new reality, a new problem with population growth and GDP fetishism: GDP rises with the number of people participating in the economy, true. But GDP and accompanying tax revenues don't rise enough . Infrastructure becomes overloaded and the government fails to expand capacity sufficiently. Tax revenues rise somewhat, but, again, not enough to pay for the necessary expansion. Traffic gets worse. On…

Even if they had the power, or will, governments in ostensibly free nations shouldn't be forcing their population into a form of transport, just as they shouldn't be forcing their population into specific jobs, specific homes, or specific religions.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#45

Post by Jtsummers » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:19 PM UTC

thenipper wrote: post #35

jdblair wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand - its not the bikes that are reducing traffic, the bike access is a side-effect of the traffic calming barriers. The same barriers with no bike pass-through would be just as effective at stopping through traffic in a neighborhood. The point is to block routes through a neighborhood and force car traffic back to the main roads, stopping through traffic in a residential neighborhood.

It'd probably make plowing a lot worse though as the plows had to cut in and out.

Depending on the road layout, the plows could just be making Us through the side streets from the main avenues. Leave main, go to mandatory right/left turn, go to mandatory right/left turn, return to main.

The problem with this is that east coast cities are typically not laid out on nice grids like most cities west of the Mississippi.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#46

Post by mikeash » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:19 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #38

JoshTriplett wrote: post #5

This quote seems very telling: > It used to be that only locals knew all the cut-through routes, but Google Maps and Waze are letting everyone know So they don't have a problem with people cutting through as long as they're "locals"; it's when the outgroup starts doing the same thing that people get up in arms. If the through traffic is breaking traffic laws, that's a solvable problem. If the street has insufficient…

There's a certain amount of irony here that people are complaining about cars clogging up their streets but think nothing of what they do when they're driving through other neighbourhoods, especially more urban ones. Suddenly they get a taste of why people living downtown are not too enthused about highways bringing in more people. A lot of this mess stems from the absurd designs of modern American subdivisions with…

I don't think there's much irony here. It's a matter of what came first. If you move to a busy downtown then you should know full well that dealing with heavy traffic on your streets is going to be a fact of life. If you move to a quiet suburban street which then years later transforms into a busy artery, that's a completely different situation.

I also completely disagree with your evaluation of pointlessly twisty roads. I dislike them too, but they work really well at keeping through traffic out of the neighborhoods. Many of those pointlessly twisty roads are useless for going anywhere besides the houses they serve, and even when they are useful, they're usually less useful than the main roads. Cut-through traffic is usually a problem in areas with grid layouts, because that makes the side streets nearly as good at getting places as the main road, which can easily transform into "better than" if the main road is congested. For example, the first story in the article is about Takoma Park, which is pretty griddy.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#47

Post by joesmo » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:20 PM UTC

morninj wrote: post #13

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a ticket for one of these types of things, some local ordinance prohibiting through traffic during rush hour. It's a great revenue generator for the local PDs. Lots of one-off traffic laws that people passing through won't (and really, can't) know about.

There's no way that the trickle of revenue is greater than the cost of enforcement. Officer salary and benefits, equipment maintenance, and all the costs associated with the court system...

Actually there is one way: civil asset forfeiture. Then it also pays for things your PD absolutely needs to do its job like margarita machines, etc.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#48

Post by pjlegato » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:20 PM UTC

JoshTriplett wrote: post #5

This quote seems very telling: > It used to be that only locals knew all the cut-through routes, but Google Maps and Waze are letting everyone know So they don't have a problem with people cutting through as long as they're "locals"; it's when the outgroup starts doing the same thing that people get up in arms. If the through traffic is breaking traffic laws, that's a solvable problem. If the street has insufficient…

I believe it's not an in- versus out-group issue as such. The issue is that the number of locals is a tiny fraction of the number of outsiders passing through, leading to a vast increase in traffic on the formerly quiet street.

When only locals who lived on or near the street knew about the route, you might see five cars a day cutting through. Now that Waze is onto it, they're seeing five cars a minute cutting through.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#49

Post by PaulHoule » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:21 PM UTC

paulddraper wrote: post #4

If it's faster to take a neighborhood street than the interstate , there's a problem. It's not normal. It sounds like residents are at war with transportation infrastructure instead.

This has been the case in Los Angeles since the 1960s.

The first time I went to L.A. we got in around 5pm on a Friday and planned to drive North on the 405 and get up to Venura or Santa Barbara before finding a hotel, which looks possible on a map.

It is possible if you go at some other time, but definitely not possible on a typical Friday afternoon. We got caught in bumper-to-bumper traffic and pulled off at Santa Monica Boulevard and found a hotel which looked right out of Pulp Fiction.

If you are going to most points north of LAX (to Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Hollywood, Burbank, etc.) a cabbie or Angelino will take you on surface streets because you get there way faster.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#50

Post by woah » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 3:21 PM UTC

HillaryBriss wrote: post #34

mikeash wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The use of traffic tickets as supplemental revenue is a time-honored tradition with many real-world examples. Some places fund their entire police department this way. I don't know why you'd think it couldn't be greater than the cost, either. It takes, what, five minutes to write a ticket, which might average $100? That's $1,200/hour of revenue. No way the officer costs that much, even including benefits and equipmen…

In LA, for example, most of the driving infractions are violations of the California vehicle code, not city-specific vehicle codes. And so it turns out that a very substantial portion of ticket revenues go to the state, not the city. California even has a law preventing cities from creating these kinds of local vehicle code laws that could generate local revenue.

It sounds like the law we are talking about here is very local.