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

Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts”

lamag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 311 posts

Re: Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts”

#81

Post by bonestamp2 »

geofft wrote: post #56
chrisseaton wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it’s not clear to me why the various impacted cities don’t choose to ban through traffic Can you physically turn the streets into cul-de-sacs? Where I live a lot of domestic streets are cul-de-sacs presumably to prevent too many people driving past.

Actually can you just put traffic-triggered off-by-default red lights, similar to the ones used on highway on-ramps to trickle cars in during rush hour? If only one or two cars are seen on the road, turn the light off. If more than that, turn it on and allow one car per green every several seconds. It will reduce throughput enough that Waze will automatically route away from it (and eventually Waze editors will have…

That is interesting... metered off ramps. I could see them putting one at the Eastbound 101 exit for Haskell. I see very few people exit there while I'm stuck in traffic waiting to get on the 405. I'm sure a significant number of people are following waze (it often suggests I go that way to save 4 minutes).

Re: Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts”

#82

Post by jakobegger »

atdt wrote: post #53
duxup wrote: post #5

In LA are these shortcuts worth it? I was surprised to find with Google maps more often than not it suggests to just take that busy highway that is crawling alone because ... it really is faster. I've tried to defy google maps ... rarely do I win. Granted google maps is wrong at times. During snowstorms it loves to send me down off streets that haven't yet been plowed or ... worse random county roads you do not want…

Travel time isn't everything. Negotiating a series of scenic turns is often more pleasant than inching along on the highway, even if the latter takes less time.

That sounds nice in theory, but since everyone uses navigation apps, in practice you are just going to inch along bumper to bumper on the "scenic" route.

Re: Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts”

#83

Post by orthoxerox »

tschwimmer wrote: post #46
duxup wrote: post #5

In LA are these shortcuts worth it? I was surprised to find with Google maps more often than not it suggests to just take that busy highway that is crawling alone because ... it really is faster. I've tried to defy google maps ... rarely do I win. Granted google maps is wrong at times. During snowstorms it loves to send me down off streets that haven't yet been plowed or ... worse random county roads you do not want…

I once read (sorry can't find cite) that Waze and Google maps run roughly the same routing algorithm now, but Waze is hyper-optimized for time whereas Google maps is optimized for some nebulous quality akin to "fastest reasonable route" where unreasonable factors are things like using small roads, exiting and entering the high a bunch, extra turns, etc. So Waze probably is faster by a bit, but not a whole ton. In my…

Do you use turn by turn navigation in Maps? It could've adjusted its predictions to your driving patterns.

Re: Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts”

#84

Post by mytailorisrich »

chrisseaton wrote: post #3
valiant-comma wrote: post #2

When these articles show up now and again, it’s not clear to me why the various impacted cities don’t choose to ban through traffic. Some articles have implied that this is not possible. Los Altos did this a while back[1]. Is there a legal issue the communities surrounding Los Angeles want to avoid, that Los Altos simply took the risk on? [1] https://slate.com/business/2017/06/suburbs-finally-figured-o...

> it’s not clear to me why the various impacted cities don’t choose to ban through traffic Can you physically turn the streets into cul-de-sacs? Where I live a lot of domestic streets are cul-de-sacs presumably to prevent too many people driving past.

Yes, in my neck of the woods they cut off some roads used as rat runs by installing bollards. Pedestrians and bikes can still go through but car no longer can.

Re: Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts”

#85

Post by Freak_NL »

r00fus wrote: post #55
Xylakant wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can install what’s called “Modal Filters”: A series of barriers that lets pedestrians and cycles pass, but blocks cars. This slightly inconveniences local traffic, but blocks through traffic.

Near my downtown side-streets there are temporary barriers that you can actually drive around (but you know you're going against what the sign says). I presume enforcement is always an option. Another point, on my street there used to be horrible backup right in front of my house, but once the light near the school nearby went to a half-duplex mode, apps stopped recommending it as a sure bet shortcut. Once that happe…

If the signs prohibit passage, Waze wouldn't be able to use that (legally invalid) route, would it?

Re: Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts”

#86

Post by blablabla123 »

Since years I'm surprised that Google maps suggests routes through small roads. This makes no sense, maybe I see a minute but it's so much more stressful to navigate. Big roads are actually built for traffic, there is no point to use small roads for transit traffic. Also it is much more likely to compete with bicycle drivers and pedestrians for road space.

Re: Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts”

#87

Post by 6nf »

chrisseaton wrote: post #3
valiant-comma wrote: post #2

When these articles show up now and again, it’s not clear to me why the various impacted cities don’t choose to ban through traffic. Some articles have implied that this is not possible. Los Altos did this a while back[1]. Is there a legal issue the communities surrounding Los Angeles want to avoid, that Los Altos simply took the risk on? [1] https://slate.com/business/2017/06/suburbs-finally-figured-o...

> it’s not clear to me why the various impacted cities don’t choose to ban through traffic Can you physically turn the streets into cul-de-sacs? Where I live a lot of domestic streets are cul-de-sacs presumably to prevent too many people driving past.

Around my area in Sydney a few new street signs have been popping up banning traffic from driving through at certain times of the day, without actually changing the roads. The signs say for example 'No right turn 7am-10am' which is when morning traffic sneaks into the side street to get to the CBD faster.

Then I got to sit on my balcony for 6 weeks watching the traffic cops ticket one car after the other until they stopped catching people.

Re: Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts”

#89

Post by ishi »

The article tries to paint Waze as an "evil" corporation, but to me it sounds like they haven't perfected their algorithms yet. If Waze reroutes 1,000 cars to a shortcut that can only handle 100, that's idiotic and does not provide a good service to users. But if their algorithms took the road's capacity into account, everyone would benefit since there would be no "synthetic" traffic jams.

In my experience traffic apps are imperfect and even dangerous:

- Waze sent me once to a shortcut via a very shady neighborhood

- Google drove me through an alley so narrow that I had to fold the side mirrors in order to pass

- Google twice tried to put me on a toll-road ramp that could only be used by electronic pass holders. As a tourist, I didn't have one.

That said, these apps provide huge value by telling you about road conditions (e.g. accidents) and routing you around them, estimating your ETA, and telling you how to get to your destination even if you miss a turn. I would not want to go back to the old way of navigating using paper maps and just hoping for the best...

Re: Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts”

#90

Post by TulliusCicero »

chrisseaton wrote: post #3
valiant-comma wrote: post #2

When these articles show up now and again, it’s not clear to me why the various impacted cities don’t choose to ban through traffic. Some articles have implied that this is not possible. Los Altos did this a while back[1]. Is there a legal issue the communities surrounding Los Angeles want to avoid, that Los Altos simply took the risk on? [1] https://slate.com/business/2017/06/suburbs-finally-figured-o...

> it’s not clear to me why the various impacted cities don’t choose to ban through traffic Can you physically turn the streets into cul-de-sacs? Where I live a lot of domestic streets are cul-de-sacs presumably to prevent too many people driving past.

Yes, Portland added diverters to some of its neighborhood Greenway routes, that forcibly divert car traffic (walking and biking can still get through). It was done for basically what's talked about in the article, too many cars using local residential roads for commuting.

Really, this is a design problem with the streets and lack of effective public transportation. LA brought this onto itself.

Post reply on HN