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

141–150 of 311 posts

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

#141

Post by marble-drink »

msluyter wrote: post #122

I try to minimize not total driving time, but something I call "agony" (term borrowed from Hipmunk). So, I'll take meandering side streets over a stop-and-go highway if it means I'm moving most of the time, even if the total wallclock time is greater. Or I'll take 3 right turns to avoid a harrowing left hand turn. Anything that keeps my blood pressure down. AKA, "long cuts." Assuming there are at least some out there…

I don't participate in "stop and go" by positioning my car far back from the car in front and selecting an appropriate gear such that my car will keep rolling with just the engine idle. It means you don't waste any fuel or clutch actuations and it's just much easier.

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

#142

Post by genmon »

simplesleeper wrote: post #139
sails wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slight Tangent: I've got a feeling that private vehicles in Zone 1 (and 2...) benefit a tiny percentage of the population, and should be the next target for reducing inner city congestion (implementation perhaps tricky). Is this concept something you've come across in your work/field? If not, any ideas for what is next? I hope to see: 1. Car free days over weekends in high streets. 2. Entire high streets converted to…

1. Has no support from central london residents and 2. Sadiq Khan has already tried to Pedestrianise Oxford Street, but was blocked by parliament. 3. There are cycle lanes and cycle highways and there is a lot of development in the cycle space - and will no doubt be continued. Bus lanes and schemes to improve buses are constantly being tried, but their uptake is low, meaning that it is difficult to increase the servi…

Small correction: the pedestrianisation of Oxford St (led by Khan and the GLA) was blocked by Westminster Council, not Parliament

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khans-plan-to-m...

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

#143

Post by jinglebells »

Steve44 wrote: post #113
simplesleeper wrote: post #80

Transport for London Tech Lead here. In London, we have been collaborating with google waze - we provide them with information at the local level. Streets that waze should not use for route finding (e.g. roads with schools) can be blocked for use by Waze. Both local councils and TfL can provide this data. The main difference between Waze and Google Maps is that Waze uses real time traffic data. There are multiple map…

> The main difference between Waze and Google Maps is that Waze uses real time traffic data. Google Maps has real time traffic data and the accuracy is staggering. I occasionally use Google Maps for navigation in the car and it even highlights traffic stationary at traffic lights and temporary road works as I’m approaching. This level or real time detail really amazed me. I’ve not spent any time looking onto how they…

Android location services upload to Google by default. Google even make it a feature https://www.google.com/maps/timeline?pb

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

#144

Post by wccrawford »

thinkingemote wrote: post #112
tschwimmer wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've noticed Waze optimizing for quickness. Not fastest, not shortest, not most direct but the route which makes you feel like you are getting there quicker. Often longer stretches with no traffic or junctions for example. It's as if users main priority is not to be held up. Users don't care if the journey is two minutes longer or a few pence more expensive, they just don't want to be feeling they are making no progr…

" they just don't want to be feeling they are making no progress."

I think you may have just convinced me to use Waze instead of Google Maps. I'd much rather relieve the stress of driving a bit than save a few minutes of time.

Well, actually, I'd rather not drive at all. But seeing as that isn't really an option, I'll settle for making it less stressful.

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

#145

Post by lvturner »

scruple wrote: post #101
saurik wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the whole point of Waze: if you weren't trying to frantically get somewhere as fast as possible, no matter the cost (I mean, this app is even trying to warn you about police cars so you can get a lower risk for constantly speeding...) you would download a more mainstream app.

Okay, but, Google Maps has speedtrap warnings, too, though.

I may be mistaken, but I think only in certain locations - I've certainly never been able to use it (maybe I just haven't found out how to turn it on)

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

#147

Post by orthoxerox »

> These thousands of homeowners and renters have arguably been injured by Waze’s and Google’s successful privatization of formerly public streets.

That's a... very creative interpetation of what public and private mean.

If you don't want your side street to be driven on at 30 mph, then you can't drive on it at 30 mph either. Traffic calming measures are a thing. Make it even more winding, add road bumps, bottlenecks. Turn it into a 12mph street, and no one will use it as a shortcut anymore.

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

#148

Post by ovi256 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #97
ishi wrote: post #89

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 ap…

> But if their algorithms took the road's capacity into account, everyone would benefit The people getting extra non-resident traffic on residential streets don't benefit. But let's ignore them and look only at current drivers. It's quite possible for routing even one car through shortcut neighborhoods to be a net negative, because they have to spend time leaving and merging back with the main traffic flow.

>The people getting extra non-resident traffic on residential streets don't benefit.

Those streets being public roads, they don't have any right to exlusively using them. Furthermore, a public resource should be used efficiently.

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

#149

Post by nkrisc »

orthoxerox wrote: post #147

> These thousands of homeowners and renters have arguably been injured by Waze’s and Google’s successful privatization of formerly public streets. That's a... very creative interpetation of what public and private mean. If you don't want your side street to be driven on at 30 mph, then you can't drive on it at 30 mph either. Traffic calming measures are a thing. Make it even more winding, add road bumps, bottlenecks.…

They don't even have snow. Add the speed bumps. Lots of them.

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

#150

Post by floatingatoll »

It’s disappointing to see LADOT neglecting to use a road management tool already at their disposal to stop Waze’s abuse of their residential zones:

No Thru Traffic.

Posting NTT signs at entry points into residential neighborhoods and specifying even as little as a $5 fine would make entry for thru routing unlawful, stopping Waze.

Whether or not the city enforces these signs would be irrelevant, as long as the traffic laws were in place permitting enforcement. Their simple presence would require Waze editors to accurately identify all such entry points and force Waze to prefer the surrounding arterials. They are, I believe, requires to denote such signage to their maps so that Waze does not compel unlawful driving behaviors, even if some percentage of drivers might otherwise make the entry illegally.

As an additional possible bonus, by marking zones as NTT, the Waze algorithms would not only exclude those zones but likely also reject periphery roads near those zones, as their value as a shortcut would diminish further versus the arterials they circumvent.

Post reply on HN