I donât think its wrong for residential areas to discourage through traffic, regardless of how âupscaleâ they are.
Thereâs 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.
Iâd suggest the residents petition their council to get their roads blocked off in the middle and turned into cul-de-sacs.
I canât really bring myself to delve into the âAre they just being classholes or does everyone hate congestion?â quagmire; but I am always interested to see âcrowdsourcingâ collide with the issue of malicious and/or self-interested actors.
The promise of âcrowdsourcingâ (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 Iâm just being a layman drawing parallels between things he knows too little about, or whether making âcrowdsourcingâ 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 ainât 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 âupscale neighborhoodsâ there may actually be legitimate reasons to try to game the system.
If these people didnât 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, doesnât Waze belong to Google now? Since they use GPS data to crowdsource a lot of their traffic, if a user repeatedly reports congestion that isnât 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 âdisappearedâ users).
Alternately, add the data to the database, but set them as a âuniversal foeâ in Waze so that no one elseâs client takes it into account.
A pretty common tactic is to add speed humps to calm residential speeds back down to 20mph.
I donât think itâs 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 donât 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.
Arenât 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 elseâs journey shorter - I donât think so.
It seems to me that the app in itself is a tool to âhackâ conventional travel routes, so why canât people impacted by non-local traffic hack back?
Donât 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 itâs 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 theyâre 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, itâs clever. When you do it, itâs self-interested. When he does it, itâs passive-aggressive.
Doesnât work. If drivers perceive that a route would be shorter theyâll take it - even through subrurbs
Donât be stupid. So, if you donât 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.
Isnât this how itâs supposed to work?
In my area, speed humps donât 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, itâs over for that area.
pretty much, but the complainers are claiming that congestion theyâre creating on these roads is being falsely reported by the residents of the street(s).
Iâve been using Waze in LA for a while and I always enjoy it when it takes me through a neighborhood Iâve never explored before. I donât think Iâve 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. Theyâve 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.
