7 ms·

A nice quote from the article - "The mayor spoke proudly of this shining example of the city’s “data initiative,” and how the Waze partnership would “get people

A nice quote from the article - "The mayor spoke proudly of this shining example of the city’s “data initiative,” and how the Waze partnership would “get people where they want to go, faster.”" followed by a dissatisfaction that it did not result in people getting sent to the roadways that the traffic planners wanted to. Guess what, people would absolutely get sent to the major roadways if (and only if!) those roadways would actually get people where they want to go, faster. If those roadways suck compared to the alternatives, then that points towards a duty of the major to improve those major roadways (which are obviously overwhelmed even after Waze helps by redirecting some traffic off of them), not a duty to drivers to simply suffer every day while sitting in a traffic jam on the "gov't recommended" route or the likes of Waze to keep mum about better alternatives. The article mentions the 'LA Complete Streets Official Guide' listing which streets the planners designated as arterial vs non-arterial - guess what, if there's a mismatch between the plan and how people can reach their destinations most efficiently, then it is the plan that's wrong and needs to change, not the drivers. If you plan and build a wider, "faster" arterial route that's actually a huge diversion and drivers take shortcuts instead of following your route, well, too bad you wasted a bunch of money building a road noone needs based on a bad plan, it's not the fault of drivers that this road doesn't suit their needs. The city was free to use its partnership with Waze to determine where to build(improve/widen/regulate) roads and intersections that would be a better fit for how people want to travel. However, instead of listening to the people through that data, they wanted to use it to tell people how to get where they want to be in a way that suits interests of city planners instead of the driver - and that's not how it works.

wcarron 7y ago
> The article mentions the 'LA Complete Streets Official Guide' listing which streets the planners designated as arterial vs non-arterial - guess what, if there's a mismatch between the plan and how people can reach their destinations most efficiently, then it is the plan that's wrong and needs to change, not the drivers. I think you are failing to differentiate between use and abuse. Roads have a specific purpose. Small, narrow side streets in dense, highly populated neighborhoods are not meant for heavy thru-traffic. Drivers using them for that purpose are, in fact, abusing them, at the expense of the people that live, walk, run, bicycle, and park in that neighborhood. In these instances, it is not that the city planners were wrong. The plan wasn't wrong. The drivers heedlessly barreling down streets never meant for that are in the wrong. > it's not the fault of drivers that this road doesn't suit their needs. You can't always get what you want. The desire to get to work 5 minutes faster doesn't overrule the right of people to have safe streets to live on. Unnecessarily diverting loads of drivers onto roads not meant to handle them is unethical.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  I would consider that any driver who's following all the rules of the road and posted signs (which would and should be different for these small, narrow side streets) should be freely able to use that road if it gets them where they want to be faster or more conveniently, and that them using these streets in that way should NOT be considered abuse. If there's a mismatch between the planners' intent and the posted street signs, speed limits, etc - that's a fault of the plan and the planner's; street signs delineating how drivers should behave on these streets are a key part (if not the main part) of city traffic planning. Drivers have to obey the signs, and they don't have to obey some official's intent - so if some streets have lower speed limits or speed bumps because they're residental areas, then that's completely fine and both drivers and Waze will take that into account when routing. But in general, if it's a public street, then the public (including nonlocal public!) is meant to be there if they want to; if it's not a private street of a gated neighbourhood then the drivers passing through have the exact same right to use that public street as the people who live there. It's not at the expense of the people who live there, it's simply using your own rightly deserved share of that public street instead of expecting that those other people have a monopoly on it and that you'd need their permission to share that street with you - if anything, you could label the desire to keep others off "their" street as doing so "at the expense" of these other taxpayers. You can plan and build non-arterial streets so that they're more useful for reaching local stuff and less useful for passing through; however, if the locals are allowed to drive through that street with x mph, then arbitrary numbers of other people are (and should!) also be allowed to be there on the same conditions.
  - jacques_chester 7y ago
    Your underlying argument seems to be that planners were insufficiently psychic to foresee Waze. The roads are public property and their use is constrained by law. The same legal authorities which can set speed limits can ban non-local traffic. That would overcome your reliance on emphasising the letter, and not intent, of the law.
  - nullc 7y ago
    > I would consider that any driver who's following all the rules of the road and posted signs (which would and should be different for these small, narrow side streets) Sweet. So you agree that adjusting the traffic laws and/or posting signs that say "No through traffic, transit to or from neighborhood properties only" would be sufficient to then permit enforcement actions? Those signs don't exist yet because prior to waze/maps they generally weren't required-- common decency and limited patience with convoluted paths were enough to restrict through traffic in most cases. Now that almost everyone driving is being directed by a mechanical sociopath it has turned into an issue.
amluto 7y ago
> Guess what, people would absolutely get sent to the major roadways if (and only if!) those roadways would actually get people where they want to go, faster. If those roadways suck compared to the alternatives, then that points towards a duty of the major to improve those major roadways I strenuously disagree. You seem to be saying that city planners and traffic engineers have to design with the constraint that a large subset of drivers will take the instantaneously fastest route rather than sticking to intended high-throughout roads. I suspect that this would have rather poor implications. It means that little residential streets that happen to parallel major streets will get used at their full capacity whenever the major streets drop below 25-ish mph. This, in turn, likely means that the little streets can’t safely be used by pedestrians and become unsafe for people trying to cross or exit driveways, let alone for kids who want to play. This sucks. It’s not clear what cities can do about it, but blaming the cities and saying that every last through street needs to be widened is not the answer.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  In fact, widening every street will make the situation worse. Induced demand is a well-known phenomenon. All that will happen is that trip time will return to around the previous equilibrium but now neighbourhood roads will be much more expensive and dangerous. The problems of roads can't be solved by building more roads.
- enoch_r 7y ago
  In Portland the city has put up "diverters," which block cars from continuing along a neighborhood street while allowing pedestrians and bikes through. It makes the street useless as a cut-through. I love this model and wish they'd sprinkle them every few blocks on every neighborhood street in the city.
  - WWLink 7y ago
    I only ever see shit like this in affluent neighborhoods.
jacques_chester 7y ago
Maybe convenience to drivers is not the single purpose of urban planning.
jacques_chester 7y ago
It's possible that urban planners know more about urban planning than you do.

wcarron 7y ago

> The article mentions the 'LA Complete Streets Official Guide' listing which streets the planners designated as arterial vs non-arterial - guess what, if there's a mismatch between the plan and how people can reach their destinations most efficiently, then it is the plan that's wrong and needs to change, not the drivers. I think you are failing to differentiate between use and abuse. Roads have a specific purpose. Small, narrow side streets in dense, highly populated neighborhoods are not meant for heavy thru-traffic. Drivers using them for that purpose are, in fact, abusing them, at the expense of the people that live, walk, run, bicycle, and park in that neighborhood. In these instances, it is not that the city planners were wrong. The plan wasn't wrong. The drivers heedlessly barreling down streets never meant for that are in the wrong. > it's not the fault of drivers that this road doesn't suit their needs. You can't always get what you want. The desire to get to work 5 minutes faster doesn't overrule the right of people to have safe streets to live on. Unnecessarily diverting loads of drivers onto roads not meant to handle them is unethical.

PeterisP 7y ago
I would consider that any driver who's following all the rules of the road and posted signs (which would and should be different for these small, narrow side streets) should be freely able to use that road if it gets them where they want to be faster or more conveniently, and that them using these streets in that way should NOT be considered abuse. If there's a mismatch between the planners' intent and the posted street signs, speed limits, etc - that's a fault of the plan and the planner's; street signs delineating how drivers should behave on these streets are a key part (if not the main part) of city traffic planning. Drivers have to obey the signs, and they don't have to obey some official's intent - so if some streets have lower speed limits or speed bumps because they're residental areas, then that's completely fine and both drivers and Waze will take that into account when routing. But in general, if it's a public street, then the public (including nonlocal public!) is meant to be there if they want to; if it's not a private street of a gated neighbourhood then the drivers passing through have the exact same right to use that public street as the people who live there. It's not at the expense of the people who live there, it's simply using your own rightly deserved share of that public street instead of expecting that those other people have a monopoly on it and that you'd need their permission to share that street with you - if anything, you could label the desire to keep others off "their" street as doing so "at the expense" of these other taxpayers. You can plan and build non-arterial streets so that they're more useful for reaching local stuff and less useful for passing through; however, if the locals are allowed to drive through that street with x mph, then arbitrary numbers of other people are (and should!) also be allowed to be there on the same conditions.
- jacques_chester 7y ago
  Your underlying argument seems to be that planners were insufficiently psychic to foresee Waze. The roads are public property and their use is constrained by law. The same legal authorities which can set speed limits can ban non-local traffic. That would overcome your reliance on emphasising the letter, and not intent, of the law.
- nullc 7y ago
  > I would consider that any driver who's following all the rules of the road and posted signs (which would and should be different for these small, narrow side streets) Sweet. So you agree that adjusting the traffic laws and/or posting signs that say "No through traffic, transit to or from neighborhood properties only" would be sufficient to then permit enforcement actions? Those signs don't exist yet because prior to waze/maps they generally weren't required-- common decency and limited patience with convoluted paths were enough to restrict through traffic in most cases. Now that almost everyone driving is being directed by a mechanical sociopath it has turned into an issue.

amluto 7y ago

> Guess what, people would absolutely get sent to the major roadways if (and only if!) those roadways would actually get people where they want to go, faster. If those roadways suck compared to the alternatives, then that points towards a duty of the major to improve those major roadways I strenuously disagree. You seem to be saying that city planners and traffic engineers have to design with the constraint that a large subset of drivers will take the instantaneously fastest route rather than sticking to intended high-throughout roads. I suspect that this would have rather poor implications. It means that little residential streets that happen to parallel major streets will get used at their full capacity whenever the major streets drop below 25-ish mph. This, in turn, likely means that the little streets can’t safely be used by pedestrians and become unsafe for people trying to cross or exit driveways, let alone for kids who want to play. This sucks. It’s not clear what cities can do about it, but blaming the cities and saying that every last through street needs to be widened is not the answer.

jacques_chester 7y ago
In fact, widening every street will make the situation worse. Induced demand is a well-known phenomenon. All that will happen is that trip time will return to around the previous equilibrium but now neighbourhood roads will be much more expensive and dangerous. The problems of roads can't be solved by building more roads.
enoch_r 7y ago
In Portland the city has put up "diverters," which block cars from continuing along a neighborhood street while allowing pedestrians and bikes through. It makes the street useless as a cut-through. I love this model and wish they'd sprinkle them every few blocks on every neighborhood street in the city.
- WWLink 7y ago
  I only ever see shit like this in affluent neighborhoods.

jacques_chester 7y ago

Maybe convenience to drivers is not the single purpose of urban planning.

jacques_chester 7y ago

It's possible that urban planners know more about urban planning than you do.