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

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#401

Post by cmiles74 » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:10 PM UTC

pilsetnieks wrote: post #315

Jacqued wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> neighborhoods who didn't voluntarily agree to increased traffic just to make my commute shorter, this is free loading and their roads are for them to get to and from their home It's nothing against you but is this a common opinion in the US? People in neighborhoods "own" the streets? As a Frenchman saying this is astonishing as I would naturally consider that I do own the street just as much as they do and it's my…

I'm not American either but I can understand not wanting excessive traffic in streets that were meant for feeding the suburbs. It's not that there shouldn't be cars on those streets but they're meant to connect homes not as an extension of the highway. As such, they are being somewhat misused. It's not unlike city zoning - for example, you wouldn't want to have an industrial plant in the middle of a residential zone,…

We have an interesting situation where I live. There is a wide four lane road that is suitable trucks. Drivers who use Google or Waze, however, are directed to go down a surface street that heads to a railroad overpass with especially low clearance. At least once a year we see a truck plow into the overpass and put this crazy dent in it.[0] Then they have to let the air out of the tires and tow it.

To some degree Google and Waze seem to have caught on to this and are directing these trucks to take a left prior to the overpass. Now we have signs that disallow trucks on these roads since they are residential and nobody wants a truck running children over.[1] The last of these streets contains the local elementary school.

My point is that it's more complicated than it looks. Increased traffic is one thing, but large vehicles represent and entirely different issue. In this case, Google and Waze aren't really serving anyone at all.

[0]: http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/11/northamptons_...

[1]: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bridge+Street+Elementary+S...

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#402

Post by underwater » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:11 PM UTC

gooseus wrote: post #196

As a Waze user, this has actually been a source of increasing frustration for me. I do not want to save 1-3 minutes on a commute by cutting through unfamiliar residential areas where deaf kids play and homeowners give me dirty looks as I go over their oversized speed bumps. I use Waze not so much as a super-optimal routing tool, but as an aggravation-avoidance tool. Traffic and speed-traps aggravate me, sure... but n…

That's why I stopped using it. Google Maps is much more conservative, but still lets me know about problems on my route and alternatives.

It feels like a classic probability problem. A shortcut has a low number of samples and high variance. The main thoroughfare has lots of same and low variance.

Maybe they could show confidence intervals "This route is 2 minutes faster ±5 minutes" :)

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#403

Post by DrScump » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:12 PM UTC

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.…

This "fix", of course, just resulted in through traffic shifting to the nearest residential through street. I have a friend who lives on a street next to a blocked street, and it has solid through traffic for the morning commute.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#404

Post by blakeyrat » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:12 PM UTC

Piskvorrr wrote: post #71

djrogers wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or London, or Paris, or Rome, or Shanghai, or Mexico City, or.... I'm sure there are shining paragons of traffic efficiency and urban design somewhere in the world, but you're not exactly doing a good ob of pointing them out here.

London, Paris, Rome - all have a gasp workable public transport (can't speak for Shanghai or MC), dwarfing the vehicular traffic. Unless I had no option to choose at all, separated public transit beat the car traffic each and every time; even the delay of leaving the car at the outskirts and taking the train downtown is quicker than hopping along, a meter a minute (and then getting the privilege of hopping around blo…

London and Paris have great subway systems, and yet somehow the streets above the subways are always gridlocked just as much as any American city I've seen.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#405

Post by kpil » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:21 PM UTC

revelation wrote: post #10

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…

I may own property on your street but that doesn't mean I can build a garbage incinerator on it. It's a zoning issue, and indeed there are already provisions that e.g. large trucks may not use some residential streets. Pouring more concrete is not the solution, it's a policy problem, particularly when rat runs are used to circumvent congestion charges. (That's not to say we shouldn't build more traffic calming for re…

I think the best way is to design the residential roads so that you have to drive really slow on them.

I think the best idea is to do build the roads so that there is a single middle lane, surrounded by nice cobblestone refuges that is possible to drive on slowly. Also add some space for bicycles and pavements for pedestrians.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#406

Post by brians » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:22 PM UTC

alttab wrote: post #373

jd20 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really think Waze can be blamed here though... it's not as though it's going out of its way to choose more dangerous routes. It has no notion of how well-lit a street is, or the incline, or how many cars are parked along the curb. No GPS app has all this data. As drivers, it's our responsibility to be aware of our surroundings and make wise choices, not to rely on an app for that. If you don't feel comfortabl…

The fact that it is advertising the "waze" to get around, they should know how well lit it is, what the incline is, etc etc etc. It's doing half its job.

Exactly. Moreover, it's underweighting some common maneuvers—like an unguarded left.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#407

Post by awm » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:25 PM UTC

Joky wrote: post #362

zippergz wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portraying this as a sense of "owning" the street is unneccessarily perjorative, IMHO. I don't think that many people would argue with the idea that, all else being equal, having less traffic on the street in front of your house is a good thing. Less noise, less polution, less risk of pets and children getting hit by cars. So it shouldn't be surprising that people dislike it when traffic in front of their houses incr…

> "Less noise, less polution, ... " Well, isn't it what NIMBY is about?

NIMBY is more "Don't use my road, use the road one block over" - in other words, road is the same but not in front of me. Thats a little different than "Don't use my road, use the road that has 3 lanes and no children on it and is labeled for commuting" I feel like there is a difference in that regard; I personally wouldn't want through traffic on my street, but I also don't want it on the streets next to mine either due to how recklessly people drive when trying to beat traffic.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#408

Post by radlad » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

hx87 wrote: post #372

zippergz wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portraying this as a sense of "owning" the street is unneccessarily perjorative, IMHO. I don't think that many people would argue with the idea that, all else being equal, having less traffic on the street in front of your house is a good thing. Less noise, less polution, less risk of pets and children getting hit by cars. So it shouldn't be surprising that people dislike it when traffic in front of their houses incr…

OTOH, an excessive feeling of ownership over neighborhood roads leads to the Tragedy of the Anticommons: everyone keeps the roads in their neighborhood off limits to outsiders, so everyone gets stuck in traffic longer, with all the entailing health and environmental costs, and thus a formerly public resource (roads) becomes underutilized.

OTOH, neighborhood roads aren't designed for the same amount of traffic as main roads -- maintenance happens less often, the roads are made of cheaper materials, there are no street lights, etc.

I don't believe that they are "underutilized" by being used solely as neighborhood roads -- that is, in fact, all they were designed for.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#409

Post by peckrob » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

osi wrote: post #272

CaptSpify wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it illegal to park in front of a driveway in the US? At least, most of the places I've lived it's illegal.

Yes. Blocking any off-street access point is illegal in most places. As is parking in a private driveway in a manner than blocks a public sidewalk.

> As is parking in a private driveway in a manner than blocks a public sidewalk.

Laws like this becomes really interesting when you build neighborhoods in certain ways.

In my neighborhood, the houses were built very far forward on the lots and thus very close to the sidewalks. Looking out my front window right now, I'd estimate it's less than 10 feet away. This has the effect of making it impossible to park in your driveway without blocking the sidewalk unless you have a very small car - like a Smart car or something.

Add to this that the HOA has a rule against long-term overnight parking on the street (which they define as more than five consecutive days). Which means that you either have to put every car in a garage, or break some law or rule.

Fortunately, most of these rules are unenforced. To my knowledge the HOA has only ever asked one person to move a vehicle off the road, and that one was parked there for months, obviously disabled and becoming an eyesore. Every now and then when I'm working in the garage I need to leave my truck parked out overnight. I always feel bad blocking the sidewalk, but then I look around and see probably half the neighborhood doing it too.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#410

Post by jonathankoren » Mon, Jun 06, 2016, 9:41 PM UTC

lliamander wrote: post #376

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…

> Anything else just feels like NIMBY entitlement. I disagree. I also think there is a sense that our urban/suburban planning should serve more that just the interests of motorists, and should support activities other than just driving to/from work. My wife and I used to drive 45 minutes just to park on the outside of a nice residential neighborhood so we could take a walk. Now we can get to family, friends, parks, b…

It's infrastructure. Why shouldn't it be maximally employed? If it's not used, it's waste. Don't like fast traffic, do what the OP said, and have the city install stop signs or reduce lane width.

The amount of traffic in the street is immaterial if you're walking on the sidewalks like you should be.