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

471–480 of 582 posts

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#471

Post by antisthenes »

devishard wrote: post #444
pnathan wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is the correct analysis. Unless it's a gated subdivision, the streets are operated by the government for the broad public benefit; not the local benefit of the homeowners.

It's a bit odd that you brought up gated subdivisions; so you think that property taxes don't pay for the right to live on a quiet street? Only people who pay for a gated community get to live on quiet streets?

You're paying for the right to be able to use that street - and for the street to be maintained in working condition, not any of its specific qualities.

I find it hilarious that NIMBYs would complain about noise, when they hire gas-operated lawnmowers to keep their lawns tidy for them.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#472

Post by treebeard901 »

FireBeyond wrote: post #417
droopyEyelids wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't actually have any information about whether that was folly or not. Let's say 2 children avoid a trip to the hospital over the next 5 years, but four thieves escape. That would be a perfectly acceptable compromise to me.

Meanwhile maybe two children die in drowning incidents because fire engines and ambulances aren't able to effectively navigate your makeshift 'traffic abatement' program. How's your compromise now?

Suppose the two children were the thieves and the traffic abatement program let them get away from the police.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#473

Post by Justsignedup »

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…

Speed bumps help a lot. These are barriers made especially for making sure people are not speeding down these usually quiet streets.

If people are speeding, surprise surprise cops are helpful. Towns need to work WITH waze not against it. I can imagine towns REALLY cranking up fines to use speeders on usually quiet streets (where kids may be playing) to ensure that the money flows into creating appropriate barriers.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#474

Post by TulliusCicero »

plorkyeran wrote: post #240
oftenwrong wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Berkeley solution has the advantage that it doesn't hurt the utility of walking and cycling.

Cul-de-sacs could easily be built with connecting bike/pedestrian pathways if that was something the developers actually cared about.

Yes. For an extreme example, see Houton, NL: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Houten,+Netherlands/@52.03...

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#476

Post by hakanensari »

spuz wrote: post #463
tomphoolery wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that doesn't mean that all streets should be maximally employed to reduce that congestion. It does, actually, because all streets are connected and part of the same network. No matter what philosophy you subscribe to as to what the "goal" of suburban neighborhood planning is, the fact remains that since (almost) all streets are (eventually) connected, and thus the problem of lots of cars being able to drive on stre…

The opposite of this is also a viable option in some cases. Create a shared road space where there is no delineation between sidewalk and roadway and pedestrians maintain right of way. It is a planning solution used in some city centres [1] I remember watching a programme about how they introduced this on a busy city centre road and weirdly it increased traffic flow while also allowing more pedestrian traffic (presum…

"By creating a greater sense of uncertainty and making it unclear who has priority, drivers will reduce their speed." - so un-binary and fascinating.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#477

Post by tommarmstrong »

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,…

Sydney makes extensive use of no left/right turn between 6-10am/3-7pm signs. It makes sure that traffic stays on the main roads instead of side streets that would quickly fill up during peak hour otherwise but isn't an inconvenience outside of those times

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#478

Post by shivsta »

triangleman wrote: post #356
balls187 wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's nothing against you but is this a common opinion in the US? People in neighborhoods "own" the streets? Yes, but it's nuanced. Own the streets in order to control the environment of our mini-castles (our homes), but know that we don't have a legal basis to stand on. Neighborhood streets weren't organized in a manner to accommodate high traffic patterns, and it ends up being a real issue for local residents. It'…

I heard from someone who visited Paris that cleaning crews would come around every night with water hoses, so that may be why you saw such a lax attitude to waste. Did you see any of that?

I think this is a chicken and egg problem here. Coming from the US, it's my opinion that the pet owners should be responsible for their own pet's waste, not the government.

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#479

Post by lliamander »

tomphoolery wrote: post #447
lliamander wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> that doesn't mean that all streets should be maximally employed to reduce that congestion. It does, actually, because all streets are connected and part of the same network. No matter what philosophy you subscribe to as to what the "goal" of suburban neighborhood planning is, the fact remains that since (almost) all streets are (eventually) connected, and thus the problem of lots of cars being able to drive on stre…

>A better solution, IMHO, is to borrow an idea from the EPCOT[1] Concept that Walt Disney created...

Thanks for the link; I'll have to check that out further. I think I've run across documentaries for cities that have similar ideas. I think new development planning should definitely take some of these ideas into account, but we also have to think about what we can do on the margin to ensure the livability of our cities.

>> that doesn't mean that all streets should be maximally employed to reduce that congestion.

>

>It does, actually, because all streets are connected and part of the same network...

Maybe I'm misrepresenting what you are saying, but generally I would think that you don't want maximal utilization of all the paths in a network. If there's a shock to the system (say a major artery is closed down due to some chemical spill) then you want alternate pathways to be available to absorb the unexpected load. Using suburban through-ways in such a case is fine. Having significant amounts of regular traffic going through them is not. Systems need slack and redundancy to be resilient.

Now, will non-residents still use residential through-ways to commute? Indeed, that is fine and can't be totally prevented anyway. But hopefully incentivizing people to use major arteries will apply pressure to improve public transit options (in order to make those arteries more efficient) and will help keep residential streets safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.

edit: fixed formatting

Re: Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war

#480

Post by enoch_r »

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…

It's important to note that not all these debates take the shape of "homeowners vs. commuters."

The article used Clinton Street in Portland as an example. Who was upset that Clinton street was being used as cut-through by impatient drivers? Homeowners along Clinton were among those calling for change, but the loudest voices calling for diverters to reduce through-traffic were people who commuted or traveled along Clinton through methods other than cars. People who biked or walked down Clinton were used to it being a pleasant, low-speed, low-volume road where they could ride with their kids without fear. "Neighborhood greenways" like Clinton make up a huge portion of Portland's bike infrastructure, and people using it to escape traffic on the major arterial 2 blocks north were destroying that.

The roads don't belong to the people who live on them, but they don't just belong to drivers, either.

Post reply on HN