Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 582 posts

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#51

Post by djrogers »

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…

> A grid-based layout might mean more through traffic, but the traffic can filter through many, many different cross-routes rather than funnelling through the singular optimal route.

That singular optimal route funnels traffic away from my kids riding bikes, playing street hockey, drawing chalk cities, or anything else their little minds can come up with. It's why houses on a 'quiet street' are coveted, and sell for more than the same house on a busy street.

To call a design like that 'absurd' you'd have to completely ignore all of the reasons people want to pay more for it...

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#52

Post by thenipper »

Jtsummers wrote: post #45
thenipper wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

True but those non-grid layouts can also help with traffic issues as they're sub-optimal to cut through. I live in the Boston area, i'm pretty well versed with crappy layed out streets

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#54

Post by _delirium »

jdblair wrote: post #31
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maryland has snow. Berkeley does not. Bikes only reduce traffic when people can ride them. Applying a Berkeley solution to a Maryland problem could only worsen congestion and quality of life.

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.

Fwiw many newer residential developments (from roughly the 1990s) are built like this in the first place, which is why there are so many back-to-back cul-de-sacs, and rarely through streets that go more than a few blocks. It's mainly older neighborhoods that have the traffic cut-through problem, because they were built before developers started laying out neighborhood streets with the explicit goal of preventing through traffic.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#55

Post by sandworm101 »

>>> Tim Connor stands by a sign his neighbor purchased to thwart commuters from cutting through their quiet residential street in Takoma Park, Md.

So who here is the one really flouting the law? You are not allowed to simply erect traffic signs, nor are you allowed to restrict access to a neighbourhood. So it's no surprise that this guy then goes rogue on the app, a presumed violation of the eula/tos agreements.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#56

Post by Declanomous »

koolba wrote: post #23

> Connor and his neighbors put up “No Through Traffic” signs. And their city councilman, Tim Male, tried to get Google Maps to take note of the official detour, by calling the company and flagging it through the apps’ feedback feature. Assuming the road itself is a public road (not a driveway or gated community), is there any legality to this?

If the "No Through Traffic" was approved by the local government, it would carry the same weight of law as any other traffic sign. It sounds like this is the case, since their councilman is on their side. The wording does make it sound like the neighbors had an arts and crafts party and decided to create some signs though.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#57

Post by Piskvorrr »

jschwartzi wrote: post #15
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.

Welcome to rush hour in every major city.

...in America (where cities are actually built for cars and people are just annoying, barely tolerated parasites).

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#58

Post by infecto »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #25
jdblair wrote: post #17

The City of Berkeley, CA, fixed this problem a long time ago, before Waze or even widespread GPS. Every few blocks they block side streets to all vehicles except bicycles. The effect is to be forced to take right or left turns that guide you back to the main through street. Streets parallel to the through streets that are now impassible to cars are marked as "bicycle boulevards" and provide safer routes for cyclists.…

Maryland has snow. Berkeley does not. Bikes only reduce traffic when people can ride them. Applying a Berkeley solution to a Maryland problem could only worsen congestion and quality of life.

In this kind of solution bicycles are not the solution. Its about blocking residential roads to vehicles and forcing these vehicles to use planned routes, around or through. Sure, bicycles can go through them but its really about forcing cars to use engineered paths. Hopefully they did proper traffic studies for these paths but thats another issue.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#59

Post by djrogers »

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.

In TFA, it was due to a construction project, and the problem largely abated once the construction cleared.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#60

Post by vidoc »

jdblair wrote: post #17

The City of Berkeley, CA, fixed this problem a long time ago, before Waze or even widespread GPS. Every few blocks they block side streets to all vehicles except bicycles. The effect is to be forced to take right or left turns that guide you back to the main through street. Streets parallel to the through streets that are now impassible to cars are marked as "bicycle boulevards" and provide safer routes for cyclists.…

They totally did! I don't count the times I forgot about this while I was stuck on the eastbound traffic on university ave, attempting to outsmart the traffic by cutting through the blocks on the south side. Most of those blocks are barricaded nimby style, and you end up having to drive several extra miles, worsening your carbon footprint!
Post reply on HN