I don’t think its wrong for residential areas to discourage through traffic, regardless of how “upscale” they are.
There’s nothing worse than an infestation of plebeians. Good god, is that a Toyota? Here? Get it away from my Acura before the dust jumps over.
I imagine upscale residential areas of LA are already full of Toyotas.
Well, Priuses, at any rate.
This reminds me a bit of older Sat Nav systems that defaulted to shortest instead of quickest and were sending heavy goods vehicles through small residential areas instead of along trunk roads.
I’d suggest the residents petition their council to get their roads blocked off in the middle and turned into cul-de-sacs.
I can’t really bring myself to delve into the “Are they just being classholes or does everyone hate congestion?” quagmire; but I am always interested to see ‘crowdsourcing’ collide with the issue of malicious and/or self-interested actors.
The promise of ‘crowdsourcing’ (in part already realized) is extraordinary; but the development of systems that are hard to game without being unduly onerous, requiring everything but a DNA sample just to participate, or similar issues, is a fascinating set of problems.
I wonder if I’m just being a layman drawing parallels between things he knows too little about, or whether making ‘crowdsourcing’ work actually has substantial parallels to some of the strategies we see among biological systems for communication and dealing with potentially deceptive signalling?
People driving? Along public streets? Say it ain’t so!
Sometimes the problem with programs that tell people to leave the crowded freeway and use side streets instead is the drivers doing the detour thinking they can still go freeway speeds on the surface streets. Whether or not these are “upscale neighborhoods” there may actually be legitimate reasons to try to game the system.
If these people didn’t want cars using public roads for their intended purpose, perhaps when they built the neighborhood they should have made it a gated community. Or as a previous poster said, designed the roads so there are no through routes (which is super common in modern subdivisions).
But I guess that would have required some foresight or effort on their part.
Then again, doesn’t Waze belong to Google now? Since they use GPS data to crowdsource a lot of their traffic, if a user repeatedly reports congestion that isn’t reflected in actual sensor data, perhaps they could just let people report things, but not actually do anything with it except show it to them (and perhaps other “disappeared” users).
Alternately, add the data to the database, but set them as a “universal foe” in Waze so that no one else’s client takes it into account.
A pretty common tactic is to add speed humps to calm residential speeds back down to 20mph.
I don’t think it’s wrong for drivers to use public roads to route around congestion. By removing themselves from the main thoroughfares during busy times, these drivers are reducing traffic for those who stay on the main roads.
If you don’t want through traffic in your neighborhood during commuting times, move to a gated community or a suburb development with no through roads, as others have mentioned.
Aren’t the crowd-sourcers being self-interested by trying to create a facility to avoid traffic congestion? I mean are they just selflessly doing it to make someone else’s journey shorter - I don’t think so.
It seems to me that the app in itself is a tool to ‘hack’ conventional travel routes, so why can’t people impacted by non-local traffic hack back?
Don’t forget that some of these areas might have been there for almost 100 years.
I think bcoookin said it best:
Happens all the time in my 'hood and it’s not even a real short cut. Drivers pour on the speed in these residential areas giving them the illusion of reducing their travel time when in fact they’re taking a more indirect and longer route (additional stop lights and signs, school zones, single lanes, etc.)
I think the ire being raised is that the hackers are rich (or slightly better off then the complainers).
When I do it, it’s clever. When you do it, it’s self-interested. When he does it, it’s passive-aggressive.
Doesn’t work. If drivers perceive that a route would be shorter they’ll take it - even through subrurbs
Don’t be stupid. So, if you don’t like people speeding down your street, you should move?
And… did I miss something here? Waze, an app designed to route around congestion, is causing congestion on residential streets, so the residents of those streets are reporting to the congestion to Waze, so that drivers can be routed around their now-congested neighborhoods.
Isn’t this how it’s supposed to work?
In my area, speed humps don’t work. Most of the vehicles are either/and big and wide enough to simply drive through the spaces between humps (designed for emergency vehicles)
I was in one residential part of town, where even with speed bumps most vehicles continued to drive 45 or faster.
Once drivers figure this out, it’s over for that area.
pretty much, but the complainers are claiming that congestion they’re creating on these roads is being falsely reported by the residents of the street(s).
I’ve been using Waze in LA for a while and I always enjoy it when it takes me through a neighborhood I’ve never explored before. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a huge amount of Waze traffic, but I do see that the other cars around me are often following the same route.
In the past neighborhoods have convinced the city to add stop signs and speed bumps to discourage traffic through residential areas. They’ve also added no right/no left turn restrictions and changed traffic light timing. I certainly understand the desire to keep cars from cutting through quiet neighborhoods.
Los Angeles needs to improve their traffic situation by changing the number of lanes going each direction on the freeway based on time of day. They also need to promote carpools and build out more public transportation of all types. Some of this they are already doing, but it will take time until traffic is under control.