Seems like Waze should probably try to send thru traffic down double-yellow-line roads. Those roads are typically better able to handle the traffic at least where I live (in Baltimore). Sending folks down a single lane (but not technically one way) street is nuts and doesn't really save much time.
Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war
101–110 of 582 posts
Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war
#102Homeownership is so overrated, not so sovereign after all..
I don't understand. Your expectation is that if you buy a home, you should be able to prohibit people from using the public street in front of it?
I think many people expect, when they buy a home on a quiet street, that the street will remain quiet indefinitely.
Obviously that's not an entirely rational expectation, but it's very understandable.
I grew up in an entirely enclosed (not gated, just not connected) neighborhood, where riding my bike as a young child was very safe. After I moved out, it was connected to new neighborhoods, so there is now non-local traffic. It's a fairly dramatic change for people still living there.
Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war
#103This 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…
But locals also know the area better, pretty much by definition. That usually makes them safer drivers. I know that the streets near my house are filled with kids because of the three schools nearby that use the park as a playground, that almost (not quite) every other intersection is a two-way stop instead of a four-way, and that even though the streets are wide the speed limit is 25. A flash mob of commuters is not…
It's the opposite... knowing an area well usually makes dangerous drivers. Most accidents happen within some miles from home, mainly because one "knows" the area so well one lets their guard down.
Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is called "Induced Demand"
Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
GDP/capita is the important figure.
GDP/capita is an important figure. But it doesn't tell the whole story.
(e.g. I don't think GDP/capita takes into account crowded freeways overflowing onto residential streets.)
More generally GDP/capita does not take into account the unevenness of changes in quality of life which occurred on the way to a higher overall GDP/capita.
Can we really say that one statistic is "the important figure" ?
Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but traffic calming usually involves some or all of: planning studies, committee meetings, community outreach, and voting, and building & maintaining physical infrastructure. Changing the app to just not route through there is far cheaper, easier, and faster.
Easier, you say? Now someone has to curate the list of "forbidden streets," someone has to keep track of who's allowed to request additions/removals, you obviously need to add that into the algorithms somehow, etc. So, you're not actually solving anything: you're just passing the buck, pushing the traffic planners' job to Waze. And guess what: there isn't One Waze To Rule Them All - push a blocklist hard enough, and…
There's a critical mass of app users required to create the problem, you don't have to wack so many moles.
Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't things like that usually have signs?
I'm sure they do, somewhere that nobody actually driving on one of the streets in question will ever see it. > "But the plans were on display..." > "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." > "That's the display department." > "With a flashlight." > "Ah, well the lights had probably gone." > "So had the stairs." > "But look, you found the notice didn't you?" > "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I di…
In my experience, they're usually posted fairly prominently (like, at the same height as other signs, next to the road, looking like a street sign) and people are just oblivious.
Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
About a year ago, a traffic accident caused Waze to route me through a residential area. I actually respected the speed limit as I went through, and at one point saw kids playing in the street just as I was making a turn, so I slowed further. That didn't stop some busybody dad from flagging me down. I opened my window and he told me I'd better slow down (I had) because there were kids playing. My response to him was…
This is a reasonable comment and perspective, and you're definitely to be lauded for driving cautiously. Also, the father you're describing sounds irrational and insulting. But as the father of a two-year old myself, I'm sitting here thinking (a) my child is just not yet completely under control, and no matter how vigilant I am, I cannot completely eliminate all risk (not to mention the complicated issue of where ideally I'd position myself and my kid, as he matures, on the spectrum of safety vs. independence); and (b) you may be the statistical anomaly here for driving so cautiously. I'm not defending the dad, who sounds like a jerk, and I'm also not faulting Waze for making a buck by optimizing traffic patterns. I'm just putting in a plug for all the parents who most definitely realize their kids shouldn't be "playing in the street," but who are frequently shocked by how much easier it is to lock down a server than a loud and complex little creature who can't take off his shoes but who can, unfortunately, run out into the street in the blink of an eye.
Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war
#109While I have sympathy for homeowners in this case I have none for the local politicians that are complaining about it. As a Waze and Google Maps user if there is a faster route down a side street vs the interstate I'm of course going to take it. I'll follow all the laws of that side street naturally (25 mph zone for example) but I still have every right to drive down it if its a public street that is maintained by public taxes.
With that said, if these local politicians really cared about fixed the problem vs just complaining about traffic they would work within their region to fix the root problems of traffic. Provide alternate transportation options including bike lanes, trains, buses, etc. Stop building office parks out in the middle of nowhere. Start building dense, walk-able, AFFORDABLE neighborhoods close to jobs and services. Encourage local business to have people telecommute or work alternate hours.
Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war
#110Earlier 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…
To get to 12 tickets an hour, you need at least 12 offenders an hour which is probably the bottleneck the GP alluded to. That said, 5 minutes per ticket pretty much requires offenders to present themselves in a nice, orderly line. A more normal scenario where the officer has to cruise around, pull someone over, get out, talk to the person ("no no, I'm not passing through, my sick uncle lives over there"), write the t…
$400/hour would still be plenty. Usually they go after speeders, which are really easy to catch, because everybody speeds. It's often an unwritten rule that you don't get ticketed unless you're going 10+ over the limit, but revenue-hungry jurisdictions don't need to honor that. I'm sure Waze cuts down on this, but they can hit a trouble/lucrative spot for a day or three, then move on.