Traffic apps turned L.A.’s neighborhoods into ”shortcuts” • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by floatingatoll » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

soneil wrote: post #254

HillaryBriss wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

my humble guess is that the genie is out of the bottle: the vast majority of these LA drivers are daily commuters. now that these drivers are used to taking these routes, most of these residential neighborhoods will remain saturated permanently. removing the routes from Waze won't relieve much traffic pressure.

The article mentions a gentleman that somehow 'disabled' his street in the waze map editor, and described the effect as a tap being turned off. I think that's the goal here. Not "no traffic", but not "drinking from the hosepipe" either - that's what arterials are designed for. Ultimately, if it can't be tamed by more tactful means, the proper solution will be to close one end of these routes so the go from being post…

I believe the LADOT's goal here is "no thru traffic", wherein cars only enter a given "residential zone" when they have reason to be present in it, and that's why my idea centers around most clearly stating that.

If you try to take actions that are not "no thru traffic", the area would need to have precisely one ingress-egress point, at the same point, in order to ensure that there are no one-way ingresses/egresses for thru traffic routing algorithms to take advantage. This single in-out location would prevent Waze from considering the neighborhood for thru traffic, at the expense of increasing drive times for residents of the neighborhood for all egress points removed. The political fights over this would be an absolute nightmare, as there would be a perceived risk of negative impact to home values for all homes near former egress points due to increased trip times.

Simply making it a traffic violation to "thru" a residential zone does no harm to residents and businesses, as they retain their free right of ingress/egress to/from their zones, and allows residents to request enforcement if an unusually high level of thru traffic impacts their zone for any reason (Waze or otherwise). That's why I propose it rather than more drastic alternatives.

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

#282

Post by TuringNYC » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 7:57 PM UTC

2_listerine_pls wrote: post #157

neka wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waze doesn't seem to allow you to specify whether you're a trade vehicle or not so it keeps routing trade vehicles into Regents (and the other Royal) Park which they are prohibited from and liable to be fined.

They probably infer your vehicle type from acceleration data

Or more easily from the default Bluetooth name

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

#283

Post by orthoxerox » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 8:01 PM UTC

cannonedhamster wrote: post #274

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.…

My road is a winding country lane in a small city. The speed limit is 30MPH. Visibility is poor, the street winds and narrows. People have run into houses, but that doesn't stop people from gunning it to 60-70MPH on the small straight sections that exist and throwing their liquor bottles into my yard. People don't care about other people when they get behind the wheel of a vehicle and their aren't enough police to so…

Your local authorities could fix the small straight sections so that people couldn't drive over the speed limit there.

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

#284

Post by TulliusCicero » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 8:10 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #260

TulliusCicero wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not objectively worse, any more than road diets make streets objectively worse, or sidewalks, or protected bike lanes, or speed limits. Making roads worse for through traffic makes them better for other uses. It comes down to what your priorities are, and right now, through design, they're choosing to prioritize the very through traffic they're complaining about. It's not unfair, and it's accurate. The design de…

Road diets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and (correctly done) speed limits all have very nice features. Blocking exits does not in any way improve the road itself. It just inconveniences people that are improperly cutting through more than normal drivers. The fact that through traffic is technically possible does not mean it is 'prioritized'.

> Blocking exits does not in any way improve the road itself.

Incorrect. It improves the conditions of the road for local drivers, as well cyclists and pedestrians. Which is exactly why Portland did it. Unless you have an alternative explanation?

> The fact that through traffic is technically possible does not mean it is 'prioritized'.

It shows that they've prioritized enabling through traffic over other concerns.

It's not all that different from road diets. Road diets usually reduce the carrying capacity of the road, making it "objectively worse", in your parlance, in the service of other goals. Diverters accomplish a similar function.

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

#285

Post by Simulacra » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 8:21 PM UTC

This is not the fault of Waze. This is the fault of city planners and the people who live in those houses who have opposed mass transit expansion, and highway expansion. If all else fails we will just go back to making our own routes through neighborhoods and side streets.

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

#286

Post by anthonypasq » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 8:42 PM UTC

devit wrote: post #164

intopieces wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand

Am I the only one that finds that using that theory to justify not adding capacity is utterly idiotic? If you add capacity and it ends up being all used up, it just means you didn't add enough and should add even more if possible! Kind of like saying that in a famine it's useless to provide more food because it's going to be eaten all up anyway since some people are no longer dying of famine...

> it just means you didn't add enough and should add even more if possible!

houston has 16 lane highways and still has traffic. The population density of cities is simply too high to have cars be the primary form of transportation.

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

#287

Post by Dylan16807 » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 8:48 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #284

Dylan16807 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Road diets, sidewalks, bike lanes, and (correctly done) speed limits all have very nice features. Blocking exits does not in any way improve the road itself. It just inconveniences people that are improperly cutting through more than normal drivers. The fact that through traffic is technically possible does not mean it is 'prioritized'.

> Blocking exits does not in any way improve the road itself. Incorrect. It improves the conditions of the road for local drivers, as well cyclists and pedestrians. Which is exactly why Portland did it. Unless you have an alternative explanation? > The fact that through traffic is technically possible does not mean it is 'prioritized'. It shows that they've prioritized enabling through traffic over other concerns. It…

Road diets arguably make the road nicer to be on.

Blocking exits only fixes things through second order effects. The direct effect is negative. If we could stop through traffic via other means, we wouldn't want to block exits, but we would still want bike lanes and speed limits and road diets in residential areas.

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

#288

Post by cafard » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

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.…

What if I don't drive on it at 30 mph, stay under the official 25 mph limit, but plenty of people cutting through drive it at 40?

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

#289

Post by asdfadfadsf » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

The one solution that no one will fucking mention is to increase road capacity to zoning ratios. The city planners are allowing congestion by allowing density that is too high, then everyone has to fucking drive with 1 million other people in the same space. Also, it doesn't have to be JUST road capacity. Putting in some actual subway capacity would allow the higher densities, but you have special interest groups fighting that shit NON stop.

No one WANTS to take a side street over a freeway. You do it because the freeway is jammed. This means the city planning has FAILED. The money has been misused. I read somewhere that homeless in LA are having housing built for them. Sounds great, right? The cost per unit of housing is something like $450,000 .

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

#290

Post by ThrustVectoring » Tue, Sep 03, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

asdfadfadsf wrote: post #289

The one solution that no one will fucking mention is to increase road capacity to zoning ratios. The city planners are allowing congestion by allowing density that is too high, then everyone has to fucking drive with 1 million other people in the same space. Also, it doesn't have to be JUST road capacity. Putting in some actual subway capacity would allow the higher densities, but you have special interest groups fig…

Capacity and congestion is the wrong way to think about traffic planning. The natural response to capacity increases is to accept a longer-distance commute in exchange for lower housing costs. Instead, it's better to think in terms of accessibility - people need to go to work, buy groceries, etc, and the system must be able to accommodate those goals within reasonable amounts of time.

Crucially, this means that it's just as valid to ensure that people live within a fifteen minute walk to a grocery store as it is to ensure that traffic can allow people to drive five miles to the grocery store within fifteen minutes. Density itself can help traffic, so long as it is properly located with respect to jobs and various amenities.