8 ms·

It's ironic that the article seems to think building more roads, thereby improving road-to-miles-driven ratio will ease congestion. It also takes as fact that

by dkural 8y ago

It's ironic that the article seems to think building more roads, thereby improving road-to-miles-driven ratio will ease congestion. It also takes as fact that it's "as inefficient" to use Waze. My experience is Waze often does cut commute time down; not always; but on the aggregate it demonstrably, scientifically, provably does. That's why it's a huge success and people use it. I do think there are problems with drivers disregarding the law (speed limits, signs etc.) on smaller streets, and perhaps they need to be more aggressively punished for doing so. In general I am for more aggressive fees, sentencing and punishment for violating driving rules.

steve_musk 8y ago
Where is the scientific proof? Legitimately curious.
Fins 8y ago
But did you have somebody leaving with you, and NOT using Waze to prove that Waze does cut commute down compared to something else? Disclaimer: I usually do use Waze commuting, but find its suggestions in certain places downright bizarre.
- Casseres 8y ago
  Waze is now owned by Google, but I don't know if they share the same route-suggestion engine. I've had Google Maps (desktop web browser) give me a route once through heavy traffic, but when I dragged the route to a mostly-parallel highway, my estimated time decreased by 10 minutes. So it's not perfect, or they wanted more users to give more data on the traffic.
  - Fins 8y ago
    It seems that GMaps uses different routing engine, but GMaps often says that some traffic accident data is from Waze. With Waze, it almost always tells me to get off the highway at a certain point and then take a parallel (smaller) road to work. If I, as I now almost always do, ignore it and drive past the exit to take one couple miles down (and much closer to work) I can see Waze's ETA dropping by a few minutes. I complained to Waze about it, bit don't see any changes so far.
    - FullyFunctional 8y ago
      Ha! That's exactly my experience. I _know_ that taking that small stretch will take me longer (and cause more stress) because getting off and on the freeway (237) is a HUGE PITA. OT: I'm livid at all the efforts to punish drivers for driving (like the toll etc). We aren't driving for fun! I bet most of us would prefer not driving. I try to work from home when possible because driving in commute hours is a terrible waste of time.
      - Fins 8y ago
        Exactly. Same with Waze telling me to get off of 101 at Trimble, just to take Central, stoplights and all, to Lawrence instead of just driving all the way to Lawrence... I don't have big problem with tolls, as long s they are not on taxpayer-funded roads, and actually get you something. Not just the privilege of crossing the bay instead of driving around the Bay.
        DrScump 8y ago
        Yes, please, stay on 101. Central is a myth. It doesn't exist. And if it did, there would be dragons.
        Fins 8y ago
        Given that I've tried both, and Central is slower and longer every time, unless there's an actual accident on 101, I am not sure where do you see dragons.
jngreenlee 8y ago
>"the article seems to think building more roads, thereby improving road-to-miles-driven ratio will ease congestion." I didn't get that from my reading, why did you reach that conclusion? The article seems to focus more on the problem and the possibly misplaced controversy, rather than policy solutions.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  The subtitle of the article is "Politicians cause traffic jams," and much of the last half of the article is about how trying to promote non-SOV transit is a massive failure, and therefore we need to spend more on road building.
Steltek 8y ago
> perhaps they need to be more aggressively punished for doing so. In general I am for more aggressive fees, sentencing and punishment for violating driving rules. That's unlikely to happen. Such drivers make up a large and vocal section of society and would push back on those policies. Look at how speed cameras and red light cameras get shouted down like it's some how unfair to automatically point out that almost everyone is breaking the law.
- bsder 8y ago
  > Look at how speed cameras and red light cameras get shouted down The problem with both of those is that they get put in places where they maximize revenue rather than maximize safety. San Diego has several extremely dangerous intersections which regularly result in fatalities--which never so much as see a policeman let alone a red light camera. Instead of putting them on those dangerous intersections, the cameras got placed on high-volume intersections that weren't particularly dangerous but were particularly good at trapping people at a yellow light--especially during rush hour. The cameras had the added bonus that they increased the number of accidents at those intersections. Speed cameras tend to be similar. Rather than speed cameras getting placed on stretches of road where it's critical to get people to slow down, they get placed on roads where the speed limit is particularly out of whack with the 85th% speed.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  That speed limits are law does not make for a particularly good argument; automated enforcement gets shouted down because it is nearly always implemented as a revenue generation service instead of a method to improve traffic safety. We know very well how we can make our roads safer, and it has essentially zero to do with the printed legal speed limit. You say it yourself, almost everyone is breaking the law. That is a big red flag to me suggesting there is an imbalance between what we codify into law and what actually works.
  - deschutes 8y ago
    I used to believe the same thing and then I moved to an urban area. Now it suggests something entirely different to me. In particular, I think the casual disregard for "the rules" in heavy traffic is an amplified reflection of the "putting yourself first" values of American society (though surely not unique to it). I think the amplification comes from the relative anonymity of individuals in vehicles, the actual lack of consequences for breaking "the rules", and the "fear of missing out" after seeing other road users benefit from breaking them. In the past, I've seen extending the yellow light times trotted out as a way to improve intersection safety (as opposed to enforcing not entering on red). That analysis, in my estimation, hinges on the idea that drivers are accidentally running red lights. From what I can tell, that is not the case. I believe attentive drivers run red lights because it saves them a whole signal cycle. I don't even think extending interlock (all directions red) times would have a meaningful impact on safety as I suspect users would quickly adjust to it, as they do to adjustments to the speed limit. I can imagine someone making the claim that intentionally running a recently red light is not actually dangerous. I've not searched for any data in this respect, but common sense suggests the benefit is far outweighed by the risk. On the subject of speed limits. In at least some cases, speed limits are intentionally set to a speed lower than the road's design speed. Experience has shown that the posted speed limit provides an anchoring effect on most road users. Increasing the posted speed limit to the speed that the "majority" of traffic travels at often has the effect of increasing the speed of traffic on the roadway. The underlying principles of the rules with respect to speed, right of way, and traffic control signals are in my opinion reasonable in dense urban areas. I think there is a strong disconnect between the perceived risk of operating a vehicle and the actual risk of operating a vehicle.
AmericanChopper 8y ago
When it comes to roads, why is increasing capacity to resolve the capacity problem always automatically dismissed? I know building roads is not politically fashionable, but the alternative is to invest billions into poorly designed public transport, and (even worse) cycling infrastructure. Spending which over the course of decades barely manages to move public transport or cycling adoption by a few percent, where ever its implemented. Poor zoning regulation always seems to be a major contributor (to both transport and housing issues), but when your population increases by millions, you need to increase the capacity of your infrastructure, especially roads. The problem is a lack of rationality. A politician that says "I'm going to spend billions on new cycle paths" is somehow going to be more popular than a politician that says "I'm going to spend billions on new roads". Even in cities where cyclists make up <5% of commuters.
- ahmedalsudani 8y ago
  1. It has been shown that time and again, the volume of car traffic grows to match the increase in capacity, keeping commute time constant. 2. People like to bike, and unlike cars, you can make the case that not very many people bike because the infrastructure doesn’t support biking. If less than 5% of the people are biking, but the politician who promotes biking is popular, that tells you something about reality vs. what people want. 3. Car companies have undermined attitudes that made driving a secondary mode of transportation (not to mention the streetcar conspiracy). It’s due time for a correction that allows North Americans to live a lifestyle less reliant on cars.
- flukus 8y ago
  > When it comes to roads, why is increasing capacity to resolve the capacity problem always automatically dismissed? Because those people are going somewhere and increasing capacity of one road typically just moves the bottleneck. The only exceptions to this are when the traffic is going through the area with the new capacity and other other side has excess capacity. So something like increasing the capacity on a city bypass will reduce congestion, but increasing capacity into the city wont. The other problem is induced demand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand), when driving is quick and easy more people will drive until that's no longer the case. > A politician that says "I'm going to spend billions on new cycle paths" is somehow going to be more popular than a politician that says "I'm going to spend billions on new roads". How many (non-dutch) cities in the world have spent billions on cycle paths? They should be more popular because they're doing something that will actually reduce traffic and save money long term (cycle paths require a lot less maintenance), but IME it's the ones promising new roads that keep getting elected.
throwaway84742 8y ago
I’m actually not so sure that it cuts commute time. What I am sure is it shows a lower estimate time up front, but at least in my case that estimate is mostly wrong. Plain Google Maps seems to be pretty spot on. Apple overestimates by a minute or two to give you a bit of a buffer, maybe. Waze underestimates by quite a bit and seems to pick the most obscure roads possible even when using the more common ones is not going to take any more time.

by dkural 8y ago

steve_musk 8y ago

Where is the scientific proof? Legitimately curious.

Fins 8y ago

But did you have somebody leaving with you, and NOT using Waze to prove that Waze does cut commute down compared to something else? Disclaimer: I usually do use Waze commuting, but find its suggestions in certain places downright bizarre.

Casseres 8y ago
Waze is now owned by Google, but I don't know if they share the same route-suggestion engine. I've had Google Maps (desktop web browser) give me a route once through heavy traffic, but when I dragged the route to a mostly-parallel highway, my estimated time decreased by 10 minutes. So it's not perfect, or they wanted more users to give more data on the traffic.
- Fins 8y ago
  It seems that GMaps uses different routing engine, but GMaps often says that some traffic accident data is from Waze. With Waze, it almost always tells me to get off the highway at a certain point and then take a parallel (smaller) road to work. If I, as I now almost always do, ignore it and drive past the exit to take one couple miles down (and much closer to work) I can see Waze's ETA dropping by a few minutes. I complained to Waze about it, bit don't see any changes so far.
  - FullyFunctional 8y ago
    Ha! That's exactly my experience. I _know_ that taking that small stretch will take me longer (and cause more stress) because getting off and on the freeway (237) is a HUGE PITA. OT: I'm livid at all the efforts to punish drivers for driving (like the toll etc). We aren't driving for fun! I bet most of us would prefer not driving. I try to work from home when possible because driving in commute hours is a terrible waste of time.
    - Fins 8y ago
      Exactly. Same with Waze telling me to get off of 101 at Trimble, just to take Central, stoplights and all, to Lawrence instead of just driving all the way to Lawrence... I don't have big problem with tolls, as long s they are not on taxpayer-funded roads, and actually get you something. Not just the privilege of crossing the bay instead of driving around the Bay.
      - DrScump 8y ago
        Yes, please, stay on 101. Central is a myth. It doesn't exist. And if it did, there would be dragons.
        Fins 8y ago
        Given that I've tried both, and Central is slower and longer every time, unless there's an actual accident on 101, I am not sure where do you see dragons.

jngreenlee 8y ago

>"the article seems to think building more roads, thereby improving road-to-miles-driven ratio will ease congestion." I didn't get that from my reading, why did you reach that conclusion? The article seems to focus more on the problem and the possibly misplaced controversy, rather than policy solutions.

jcranmer 8y ago
The subtitle of the article is "Politicians cause traffic jams," and much of the last half of the article is about how trying to promote non-SOV transit is a massive failure, and therefore we need to spend more on road building.

Steltek 8y ago

> perhaps they need to be more aggressively punished for doing so. In general I am for more aggressive fees, sentencing and punishment for violating driving rules. That's unlikely to happen. Such drivers make up a large and vocal section of society and would push back on those policies. Look at how speed cameras and red light cameras get shouted down like it's some how unfair to automatically point out that almost everyone is breaking the law.

bsder 8y ago
> Look at how speed cameras and red light cameras get shouted down The problem with both of those is that they get put in places where they maximize revenue rather than maximize safety. San Diego has several extremely dangerous intersections which regularly result in fatalities--which never so much as see a policeman let alone a red light camera. Instead of putting them on those dangerous intersections, the cameras got placed on high-volume intersections that weren't particularly dangerous but were particularly good at trapping people at a yellow light--especially during rush hour. The cameras had the added bonus that they increased the number of accidents at those intersections. Speed cameras tend to be similar. Rather than speed cameras getting placed on stretches of road where it's critical to get people to slow down, they get placed on roads where the speed limit is particularly out of whack with the 85th% speed.
rootusrootus 8y ago
That speed limits are law does not make for a particularly good argument; automated enforcement gets shouted down because it is nearly always implemented as a revenue generation service instead of a method to improve traffic safety. We know very well how we can make our roads safer, and it has essentially zero to do with the printed legal speed limit. You say it yourself, almost everyone is breaking the law. That is a big red flag to me suggesting there is an imbalance between what we codify into law and what actually works.
- deschutes 8y ago
  I used to believe the same thing and then I moved to an urban area. Now it suggests something entirely different to me. In particular, I think the casual disregard for "the rules" in heavy traffic is an amplified reflection of the "putting yourself first" values of American society (though surely not unique to it). I think the amplification comes from the relative anonymity of individuals in vehicles, the actual lack of consequences for breaking "the rules", and the "fear of missing out" after seeing other road users benefit from breaking them. In the past, I've seen extending the yellow light times trotted out as a way to improve intersection safety (as opposed to enforcing not entering on red). That analysis, in my estimation, hinges on the idea that drivers are accidentally running red lights. From what I can tell, that is not the case. I believe attentive drivers run red lights because it saves them a whole signal cycle. I don't even think extending interlock (all directions red) times would have a meaningful impact on safety as I suspect users would quickly adjust to it, as they do to adjustments to the speed limit. I can imagine someone making the claim that intentionally running a recently red light is not actually dangerous. I've not searched for any data in this respect, but common sense suggests the benefit is far outweighed by the risk. On the subject of speed limits. In at least some cases, speed limits are intentionally set to a speed lower than the road's design speed. Experience has shown that the posted speed limit provides an anchoring effect on most road users. Increasing the posted speed limit to the speed that the "majority" of traffic travels at often has the effect of increasing the speed of traffic on the roadway. The underlying principles of the rules with respect to speed, right of way, and traffic control signals are in my opinion reasonable in dense urban areas. I think there is a strong disconnect between the perceived risk of operating a vehicle and the actual risk of operating a vehicle.

AmericanChopper 8y ago

When it comes to roads, why is increasing capacity to resolve the capacity problem always automatically dismissed? I know building roads is not politically fashionable, but the alternative is to invest billions into poorly designed public transport, and (even worse) cycling infrastructure. Spending which over the course of decades barely manages to move public transport or cycling adoption by a few percent, where ever its implemented. Poor zoning regulation always seems to be a major contributor (to both transport and housing issues), but when your population increases by millions, you need to increase the capacity of your infrastructure, especially roads. The problem is a lack of rationality. A politician that says "I'm going to spend billions on new cycle paths" is somehow going to be more popular than a politician that says "I'm going to spend billions on new roads". Even in cities where cyclists make up <5% of commuters.

ahmedalsudani 8y ago
1. It has been shown that time and again, the volume of car traffic grows to match the increase in capacity, keeping commute time constant. 2. People like to bike, and unlike cars, you can make the case that not very many people bike because the infrastructure doesn’t support biking. If less than 5% of the people are biking, but the politician who promotes biking is popular, that tells you something about reality vs. what people want. 3. Car companies have undermined attitudes that made driving a secondary mode of transportation (not to mention the streetcar conspiracy). It’s due time for a correction that allows North Americans to live a lifestyle less reliant on cars.
flukus 8y ago
> When it comes to roads, why is increasing capacity to resolve the capacity problem always automatically dismissed? Because those people are going somewhere and increasing capacity of one road typically just moves the bottleneck. The only exceptions to this are when the traffic is going through the area with the new capacity and other other side has excess capacity. So something like increasing the capacity on a city bypass will reduce congestion, but increasing capacity into the city wont. The other problem is induced demand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand), when driving is quick and easy more people will drive until that's no longer the case. > A politician that says "I'm going to spend billions on new cycle paths" is somehow going to be more popular than a politician that says "I'm going to spend billions on new roads". How many (non-dutch) cities in the world have spent billions on cycle paths? They should be more popular because they're doing something that will actually reduce traffic and save money long term (cycle paths require a lot less maintenance), but IME it's the ones promising new roads that keep getting elected.

throwaway84742 8y ago

I’m actually not so sure that it cuts commute time. What I am sure is it shows a lower estimate time up front, but at least in my case that estimate is mostly wrong. Plain Google Maps seems to be pretty spot on. Apple overestimates by a minute or two to give you a bit of a buffer, maybe. Waze underestimates by quite a bit and seems to pick the most obscure roads possible even when using the more common ones is not going to take any more time.