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

261–270 of 311 posts

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

#261

Post by Dylan16807 »

ovi256 wrote: post #148
Dylan16807 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's not just "roads". There are arterial roads, collector roads, and local roads. Everyone is allowed to use them, but everyone is supposed to use them for their actual purpose. The lowest tier of road is only supposed to be used for the first/last mile of a trip. It is not "efficient" use to pretend all roads are arterial.

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

#262

Post by pfranz »

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…

How far are they willing to go? I wouldn't be surprised London has similar problems, but in LA I owned a house on a "back road" that ran parallel to the 405 going north over a hill. The house was built 100 years ago. Neighbors told me the road was fine until Waze/Google maps about 10 years ago. My small house went up in value quite a bit the few years I was there, but if I wanted to buy a house on a cul-de-sac it would have been double the cost of my house. My neighbors over the 30+ years they lived there had added on to their house (like many others in the area). Last I heard they were unable to sell it--who would buy a large house on a very busy road? (their's wasn't the only example I saw) There's no school or anything to warrant blocking traffic. I'm sure it's a useful road for many people where taking the highway would double their travel time.

They keep trying to expand the 405 and there aren't feasible public transit options. The few that exist rarely put you close enough to where you need to get.

At least in the US, I feel like this road design fell out of favor a decade or two before GPSes and smart-phones. Instead of smaller roads that get improved as traffic increases, they have dedicated roads for thru traffic and neighborhoods become rat's nests, designed to discourage thru traffic. Neither system seems to "grow" very well, but of course locals prefer the "modern" approach.

There was talk in my neighborhood of locals blocking off the road in the middle, which seems to make it more like the "modern" solution I've noticed in medium density housing and solve the "Waze problem."

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

#264

Post by wccrawford »

paulcole wrote: post #151
wccrawford wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" 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.

I’m 36 and have lived in a mix of rural and urban areas of America and I never learned to drive and have never driven a car. Just want to make the point that not driving is really an option, just one that most people look for a way to avoid. It’s all a matter of priorities and as much as most people say they hate driving/traffic, very few actually do anything about it.

It's true that I could make choices that would reduce my driving further. I could Uber, or take local buses. I could even ask my wife to drive me around, and she'd probably do it, bless her heart.

But Uber is way more expensive, local buses would add hours to my commute every single day, and I'm not nearly selfish enough to make my wife drive me to and from work every day.

Oh, and bicycling is far, far too dangerous here. Otherwise, I'd totally pick that option.

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

#265

Post by Dylan16807 »

matt-attack wrote: post #218
mc32 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Residential streets are not designed for heavy through traffic. It comes back to “why we can’t have nice things”. Abuse. Many systems work when they are not abused but break down when they are abused.

Well that's not really what I hear the NIMBYs complaining about. "Hey our streets are forming ruts and potholes from the excess traffic! We need better reinforcing under our street to prevent this!"

Good! You can continue ignoring the NIMBYs then! You can both spite them and focus on the actual problem.

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

#266

Post by pfranz »

ambicapter wrote: post #191
noxToken wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you dont want to have a ton of traffic dont buy a house on a major road. You're not wrong, but Waze directs traffic down roads that aren't considered main thoroughfares. That's part of the issue. There are paths to work that I would have never imagined had I not used Waze, and plenty of those routes take me through quiet neighborhoods. A good example is the shunting yard I encounter. Most of the time, trains are…

What does using Waze have to do with ignoring road signage?

I'm pretty confident Waze routes people not by posted speed limits, but by average driving habits and traffic speeds.

I do think Waze users are self-selecting. People that are willing to take "short cuts" choose Waze. I often ignore Waze's suggestions and have had people in the car with me comment on the extra turns and backroads.

There's a certain type of driver who prefers to mostly "tune out" and take the most direct route versus someone who wants to get there with the quickest ETA even if that means a more complex route.

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

#267

Post by sdfasdfsafasf »

marble-drink wrote: post #141
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.

until some genius decides to switch to your lane to get further ahead in life a whole 3 yards.

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

#268

Post by pfranz »

sokoloff wrote: post #240
kenned3 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These "NIMBY" people always make me laught. if you dont want to have a ton of traffic dont buy a house on a major road. There is a street on the subdivision i live in with the same issue. it is the main entry point to the subdivision. people bought houses there, then fought the city for years over traffic? they put up stop signs, speed bumps, etc. they wanted the lower house prices associated with living on main road…

Not much different from people buying cheap[er] houses near an airport and then complaining about airplane noise (and sometimes trying to get the airport to close).

I think it is. A lot of LA was built out 100 years ago. Many of these people bought their house 20+ years ago. Waze started causing problems within the last 10 years and the marginal value of using these roads can be debated. I can't imagine these back roads relieving 405 traffic by any reasonable amount.

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

#269

Post by pfranz »

matt-attack wrote: post #193
floatingatoll wrote: post #150

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…

And to what end? I’m of the firm belief that the good done by Waze far outweighs the cost to the NIMBYs. In LA we have a traffic crisis. Sorry but your government built and tax funded residential street is just as much mine to use as it is yours. I won’t speed through it but I sure as hell have a right to use it as much as the local home owners. The city should not be doing what your suggesting until they’ve solved t…

The 405 is what 6 lanes in each direction now? How much extra value do you get by ruining nearby neighborhoods? I'm not saying people shouldn't deal with the change, just that it should be looked at before writing off people that have been living there for decades.

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

#270

Post by cr0sh »

pfranz wrote: post #262
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…

How far are they willing to go? I wouldn't be surprised London has similar problems, but in LA I owned a house on a "back road" that ran parallel to the 405 going north over a hill. The house was built 100 years ago. Neighbors told me the road was fine until Waze/Google maps about 10 years ago. My small house went up in value quite a bit the few years I was there, but if I wanted to buy a house on a cul-de-sac it wou…

I wonder if they could add speed bumps/tables to slow the traffic down? That might be one solution - and fairly inexpensive, too.
Post reply on HN