6 ms·

Google routes interstate traffic through our little neighborhood during rush hour traffic, causing multiple hours of complete gridlock everyday. Absolutely disg

by rp1 5y ago

Google routes interstate traffic through our little neighborhood during rush hour traffic, causing multiple hours of complete gridlock everyday. Absolutely disgusting that they’re allowed to extract profit from public resources like roadways by making it a living hell for the people that live there. Also worse is that they’re protected by state laws, so small jurisdictions are powerless to defend themselves.

a1371 5y ago
The US issue is deeper than an app. It's the extreme car dependency.
- mike_d 5y ago
  > It's the extreme car dependency. Europe has 3.5x the population density of the US. Over 40% of the US population lives outside of cities. People need access to basic services and goods and cars are how they get that. Your comment implies that, for example, people living the Artic should feel bad for being extremely dependent on artificial heat.
  - a1371 5y ago
    There is no heavenly mandate for the US to have this population density. The reason Americans live like this is not that it's the most effective use of land or energy. When we talk about car dependency, it doesn't mean go ride a bus in your suburb, that doesn't work. It means let's abolish out of date and discriminatory zoning laws. Let's introduce density to the city and bypass interstate traffic.
- rp1 5y ago
  True, but the app is inducing demand for cars, so it’s both a symptom and a cause.
  - a1371 5y ago
    Maps tools actually work extraordinarily well in denser cities. They find you the best bus and transit times. They allow you to use mixed mode transportation like bicycles in between while your enjoy the city. Arguably this is a richer experience than a route only accessible with car, for which a paper map would have been just fine. The maps business also thrives where businesses are accessible to people, not where cars are whooshing past them. So I don't think they're enthusiastic about cars either.
gjs278 5y ago
then get a sign forbidding traffic to turn onto your street during those hours
gwright 5y ago
What state laws are you referring to? Why are localities powerless? This seems like an emergent phenomena that should be addressed by legislative action. What is preventing that action?
- rp1 5y ago
  https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.northjersey.com/amp/772438002 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.northjersey.com/amp/7724380... Basically, the state doesn’t want towns to have the ability to limit traffic on their roadways.
  - raldi 5y ago
    Imagine what would happen to Leonia property values if residents were banned from driving on Manhattan streets. Society is about cooperation. Leonia benefits immensely from its proximity to Manhattan, and in return, people coming into and out of Manhattan get to pass through Leonia.
    - rp1 5y ago
      Manhattan has congestion pricing. And the tolls to get in are $20. I’m sure Leonia would be happy to charge commuters those rates.
      - raldi 5y ago
        Manhattan does not have congestion pricing. They’re studying it, and according to their announced schedule will continue to be studying it until at least late 2023. NJ residents are furious and the governor has vowed to fight this "discrimination". https://nypost.com/2021/10/09/nj-commuters-vow-to-fight-pending-manhattan-congestion-tax/ https://nypost.com/2021/10/09/nj-commuters-vow-to-fight-pend...
        rp1 5y ago
        Sorry, I meant to say that Manhattan has *approved* congestion pricing. Also, the stance of the NJ governor is totally consistent with the issue I'm complaining about. The town of Leonia wants to limit traffic on their streets and the state of NJ has barred them from doing so. The NJ state government is taking the same stance when Manhattan tries to limit traffic on its streets. Despite having some of the best mass transit options in the U.S., the NJ state government is strictly pro-car.
thesausageking 5y ago
Why is it disgusting for them to route people around traffic? If it's legal to drive on the streets in your neighborhood, they should be able to. You don't own them; they're public.
- rp1 5y ago
  Exactly. The streets are public. They are paid for by the taxes collected by the town. And now Google is using them to increase the utility of their app, which benefits Google and their shareholders. The increased traffic causes wear and tear on the roads to increase, and quality of life to drop dramatically. A five minute drive to the store takes 40 minutes now. What does Google give back to the public in return? They don’t even pay their taxes.
  - raldi 5y ago
    Do you have this level of indignance against car manufacturers, who also use the existence of public streets to benefit their shareholders? > What does Google give back to the public in return? Free, searchable maps and outstanding directions that allow all taxpayers to benefit from all the roads they pay for, instead of reserving certain roads for the use of an exclusionary group of locals.
    - eesmith 5y ago
      I don't follow your argument. If the answer is "yes", would you accept that things need to be changed? While I can't speak for rp1, yes, there are many who are indignant that the road system is biased in favor of car manufacturers over other forms of transit. You might recall that "jaywalker" was a marketing term created by car manufacturers to shift blame to pedestrians rather than car drivers, when a driver hits a walker - https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history - and those anti-jaywalking laws still exist.
      - raldi 5y ago
        Indeed, and I'd also recommend reading The High Price of Free Parking for all the ways we stupidly subsidize car culture. As a transportation activist, I'm used to drivers attempting to claim the progressive mantle by saying that a tech shuttle bus or proposed bikeshare station represents the privitization of public space, and then completely dismiss how free (that is to say, fully-subsidized) parking and cheap tolls do that to car manufacturers and owners and oil companies to a far greater extent. If OP answered yes, we could have an actual discussion. If they answered no, I'd know that further discussion was hopeless.
lostlogin 5y ago
> Absolutely disgusting that they’re allowed to extract profit from public resources like roadways by making it a living hell for the people that live there. Doesn’t this summarise roads as a whole, and any business that uses them? I hope to live in a car less city someday.

by rp1 5y ago

a1371 5y ago

The US issue is deeper than an app. It's the extreme car dependency.

mike_d 5y ago
> It's the extreme car dependency. Europe has 3.5x the population density of the US. Over 40% of the US population lives outside of cities. People need access to basic services and goods and cars are how they get that. Your comment implies that, for example, people living the Artic should feel bad for being extremely dependent on artificial heat.
- a1371 5y ago
  There is no heavenly mandate for the US to have this population density. The reason Americans live like this is not that it's the most effective use of land or energy. When we talk about car dependency, it doesn't mean go ride a bus in your suburb, that doesn't work. It means let's abolish out of date and discriminatory zoning laws. Let's introduce density to the city and bypass interstate traffic.
rp1 5y ago
True, but the app is inducing demand for cars, so it’s both a symptom and a cause.
- a1371 5y ago
  Maps tools actually work extraordinarily well in denser cities. They find you the best bus and transit times. They allow you to use mixed mode transportation like bicycles in between while your enjoy the city. Arguably this is a richer experience than a route only accessible with car, for which a paper map would have been just fine. The maps business also thrives where businesses are accessible to people, not where cars are whooshing past them. So I don't think they're enthusiastic about cars either.

gjs278 5y ago

then get a sign forbidding traffic to turn onto your street during those hours

gwright 5y ago

What state laws are you referring to? Why are localities powerless? This seems like an emergent phenomena that should be addressed by legislative action. What is preventing that action?

rp1 5y ago
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.northjersey.com/amp/772438002 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.northjersey.com/amp/7724380... Basically, the state doesn’t want towns to have the ability to limit traffic on their roadways.
- raldi 5y ago
  Imagine what would happen to Leonia property values if residents were banned from driving on Manhattan streets. Society is about cooperation. Leonia benefits immensely from its proximity to Manhattan, and in return, people coming into and out of Manhattan get to pass through Leonia.
  - rp1 5y ago
    Manhattan has congestion pricing. And the tolls to get in are $20. I’m sure Leonia would be happy to charge commuters those rates.
    - raldi 5y ago
      Manhattan does not have congestion pricing. They’re studying it, and according to their announced schedule will continue to be studying it until at least late 2023. NJ residents are furious and the governor has vowed to fight this "discrimination". https://nypost.com/2021/10/09/nj-commuters-vow-to-fight-pending-manhattan-congestion-tax/ https://nypost.com/2021/10/09/nj-commuters-vow-to-fight-pend...
      - rp1 5y ago
        Sorry, I meant to say that Manhattan has *approved* congestion pricing. Also, the stance of the NJ governor is totally consistent with the issue I'm complaining about. The town of Leonia wants to limit traffic on their streets and the state of NJ has barred them from doing so. The NJ state government is taking the same stance when Manhattan tries to limit traffic on its streets. Despite having some of the best mass transit options in the U.S., the NJ state government is strictly pro-car.

thesausageking 5y ago

Why is it disgusting for them to route people around traffic? If it's legal to drive on the streets in your neighborhood, they should be able to. You don't own them; they're public.

rp1 5y ago
Exactly. The streets are public. They are paid for by the taxes collected by the town. And now Google is using them to increase the utility of their app, which benefits Google and their shareholders. The increased traffic causes wear and tear on the roads to increase, and quality of life to drop dramatically. A five minute drive to the store takes 40 minutes now. What does Google give back to the public in return? They don’t even pay their taxes.
- raldi 5y ago
  Do you have this level of indignance against car manufacturers, who also use the existence of public streets to benefit their shareholders? > What does Google give back to the public in return? Free, searchable maps and outstanding directions that allow all taxpayers to benefit from all the roads they pay for, instead of reserving certain roads for the use of an exclusionary group of locals.
  - eesmith 5y ago
    I don't follow your argument. If the answer is "yes", would you accept that things need to be changed? While I can't speak for rp1, yes, there are many who are indignant that the road system is biased in favor of car manufacturers over other forms of transit. You might recall that "jaywalker" was a marketing term created by car manufacturers to shift blame to pedestrians rather than car drivers, when a driver hits a walker - https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history https://www.vox.com/2015/1/15/7551873/jaywalking-history - and those anti-jaywalking laws still exist.
    - raldi 5y ago
      Indeed, and I'd also recommend reading The High Price of Free Parking for all the ways we stupidly subsidize car culture. As a transportation activist, I'm used to drivers attempting to claim the progressive mantle by saying that a tech shuttle bus or proposed bikeshare station represents the privitization of public space, and then completely dismiss how free (that is to say, fully-subsidized) parking and cheap tolls do that to car manufacturers and owners and oil companies to a far greater extent. If OP answered yes, we could have an actual discussion. If they answered no, I'd know that further discussion was hopeless.

lostlogin 5y ago

> Absolutely disgusting that they’re allowed to extract profit from public resources like roadways by making it a living hell for the people that live there. Doesn’t this summarise roads as a whole, and any business that uses them? I hope to live in a car less city someday.