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

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#151

Post by sib » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:15 PM UTC

warcher wrote: post #90

I have gotten in not one, but several, extremely heated discussions over the years after parking on a public street in front of somebody's house. I'm not a big defender of, say, Airbnb running gypsy hotels in secret defiance of leasing and HOA agreements, but people have a lot of funny ideas about ownership of things that aren't theirs to own .

While I hear you, and in many ways agree, I will say that, when I was a homeowner, I had a next-door neighbor who always parked his cars in front of my house instead of his own (he filled his garage with stuff.) Yes, it was a public street and yes, he had the legal right to do so, but it was pretty annoying to have to look at his cars when he had clearly wanted to avoid looking at them himself. After a while, I began parking my cars in front of his house, instead of in my garage, just to make a point...

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#152

Post by Kluny » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

astral303 wrote: post #149

FroshKiller wrote: post #2

I'm a homeowner and an active Waze user. The street I live on is not "my" street. It's a public street that any licensed driver may use. I did have an issue with drivers coming around a blind curve too quickly to be safe, though, so I did what these homeowners ought to be doing and contacted my local government about getting my street assessed for a traffic calming project. The city created a three-way stop before th…

Traffic calming hurts emergency service response. Ambulances have to slow down to a crawl thru this "calming." Buyer beware.

It's still easier to get through calming than it is to get through a street jammed with traffic.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#153

Post by TulliusCicero » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:17 PM UTC

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.

Oulu, Finland has eight months of winter, yet they have a bike mode share triple that of Portland. Snow is not a barrier if a city actually cares about cycling: https://wintercyclingblog.org/2014/10/17/oulu-finland-winter...

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#154

Post by a2tech » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:19 PM UTC

warcher wrote: post #90

I have gotten in not one, but several, extremely heated discussions over the years after parking on a public street in front of somebody's house. I'm not a big defender of, say, Airbnb running gypsy hotels in secret defiance of leasing and HOA agreements, but people have a lot of funny ideas about ownership of things that aren't theirs to own .

Its funny because I find myself wondering who's parking in front of my house all the time. I have to take a breath and remind myself each time that its not MY street and that anyone can park there. I'd never actually give anyone any trouble for parking out there though

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#155

Post by Piskvorrr » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

pekk wrote: post #89

Piskvorrr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People are in those cars, just because you use a car doesn't mean you are not a person.

Of course not. The problem is opposite: anyone not in car becomes an unperson, as only people in cars are worth considering.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#156

Post by joehewitt » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

On Memorial Day I walked outside and did a double take - my quiet street, tucked away many turns from any main road, was backed up with cars from end to end. I'd never seen that before in 5 years here. Turned out it was Waze sending beachgoers (I'm still 30 minutes from the beach) on a side route to the nearest on ramp for the highway that heads to the coast. Within an hour there was a police car here diverting drivers and the town put up cones to stop it.

What's frustrating is this "shortcut" was completely ineffective. It simply moved the traffic jam from the main roads to our tiny neighborhood.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#157

Post by FroshKiller » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

astral303 wrote: post #149

FroshKiller wrote: post #2

I'm a homeowner and an active Waze user. The street I live on is not "my" street. It's a public street that any licensed driver may use. I did have an issue with drivers coming around a blind curve too quickly to be safe, though, so I did what these homeowners ought to be doing and contacted my local government about getting my street assessed for a traffic calming project. The city created a three-way stop before th…

Traffic calming hurts emergency service response. Ambulances have to slow down to a crawl thru this "calming." Buyer beware.

I mean, I don't think I've ever seen an ambulance stop for a stop sign. But even allowing that speed bumps will slow an ambulance down, it's not as though there would ever be 200 speed bumps delaying the ambulance by 10 minutes. If the ambulance arrives a few seconds too late, the ambulance was already several minutes too late to begin with.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#158

Post by TulliusCicero » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

mmoche wrote: post #44

HillaryBriss wrote: post #30

Earlier 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…

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.

Force? No. But planning, incentives, market-oriented policies like congestion charges? Sure.

The reason traffic gets so bad during rush hour is a simple case of supply and demand: limited supply road of space, lots of demand, and most importantly, the space is effectively free. If cities charged something approaching market rate for the space, traffic gridlock would disappear.

Of course, this is impractical to do in most US cities, because of a lack of alternative ways to get around. Thus, the first thing that needs to happen is to provide more options; once that's done, you can work on incentivizing people to take the methods that can support more people.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#159

Post by breischl » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:23 PM UTC

breischl wrote: post #140

Piskvorrr wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got a crystal ball, eh? Don't worry, I'm acutely aware what a PITA any sort of street change is - just changing the designation of a 1-block residential street to a living street is Impossible (TM), and physically, that's just signage. I'm not saying that street planning is easy, not at all. In my opinion, you seem to be saying "I understand street development, but I don't do software; therefore if the former is hard…

Actually I'm a software developer by day. Polish up that crystal ball. I'm suggesting fixing the problem in the software because that's where the problem was created and where it stands a chance of being fixed. Street infrastructure cannot be changed fast enough to deal with temporary traffic problems. Attempting to do so would be ineffective.

The problem isn't that the road is closed/restricted.

The problem is that the app is telling people to use other roads that were not designed for such traffic. If not for the app, the majority of them would likely have stuck to major arteries that are meant to handle high traffic, but instead they are flooding into side streets and causing problems.

More succinctly, the problem is that the app encourages using the roads in ways that are inappropriate. It is abusive of the road network.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#160

Post by yAak » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 5:25 PM UTC

Google Maps is routing me down these 1-lane residential roads, too, and I'd generally rather it didn't.

These 1-lane roads are already a headache for those living there, with cars parked on both sides, making dealing with ANY traffic a pain.

Traffic is terrible where I live, but I'd rather spend another 1-5 minutes on a major thoroughfare than drive through someone's neighborhood.

I don't live on a street that has this problem (it's a dead end) but we have our own parking disaster unrelated to thru traffic, so maybe its easier for me to empathize with these homeowners about something that they have almost no control over and lowers quality of life.