Navigation Apps Are Turning Quiet Neighborhoods Into Traffic Nightmares

[empirestate]

I have been hearing updates on this fairly often in the news. Notably, the only angle I've been hearing is that of local business owners fearing the loss of traffic, nothing about the legality of the restriction. Most recent reporting is that the borough government is willing to revise the signs to appease business owners; as far as the traffic-dodging out-of-towners using the local streets, well, just plan your fuel stop at a Leonia gas station, and you're all set. :-)

Courts may not move all that fast, and it may be possible that a lowest-level "traffic and misdemeanor" court cannot nullify a law (though I presume they can dismiss any tickets issued, which ends up being the same thing for people that challenge them in court).

Indeed not, but if it's true that litigation has already been initiated, that would be worth mentioning in news articles on the subject.

[Pete from Boston]

All around Greater Boston (Somerville in particular loves these) are Do Not Enter signs with a time limit on them, "except abutters."  Would anyone see a legal difference between limiting travel based on the classification of people shown a practical preference for being let in (needs property access) rather than a seemingly arbitrary political preference (lives in same jurisdiction)?

[jeffandnicole]

NJ's Attorney General tells Leonia to stop enforcing the ban on out-of-town motorists.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/05/out-of-town_traffic_bans_are_illegal_ag_tells_traf.html

Per the article, the AG did talk with the towns prior to the Assembly Committee meeting he was speaking at, and they agreed to halt enforcing the ban.  The AG will work with the towns to find legal ways to deal with the issue.

Also in the article - even though GWB congestion problems are older than almost any one of us have been alive, Christie's upping the ante will always and forever make this a subject of some good jokes.

[Brandon]

NJ's Attorney General tells Leonia to stop enforcing the ban on out-of-town motorists.

Figured something like this would happen.

[kalvado]

NJ's Attorney General tells Leonia to stop enforcing the ban on out-of-town motorists.

Figured something like this would happen.

I doubt this is the end of the story, though..

[jeffandnicole]

NJ's Attorney General tells Leonia to stop enforcing the ban on out-of-town motorists.

Figured something like this would happen.

I doubt this is the end of the story, though..

As per the story, and as noted, it's not.  But there are legal things that can be done, like dead-ending a road or making roads one-ways.  Even prohibiting traffic from turning is legal...as long as it's prohibited for everyone.

[empirestate]

"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."

Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?

[jeffandnicole]

"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."

Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?

Sure it is. People completely admit to it.

[hbelkins]

"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."

Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?

Sure it is. People completely admit to it.

Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.

(*People like us excluded.  )

[empirestate]

"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."

Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?

Sure it is. People completely admit to it.

Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.

(*People like us excluded.  )

Of course, it does seem obvious on the surface. But any sufficiently detailed paper map, digested and interpreted by the reader, would also suggest the same alternate routings as the smartphone apps. Google and Waze didn't create them.

[hotdogPi]

"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."

Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?

Sure it is. People completely admit to it.

Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.

(*People like us excluded.  )

Of course, it does seem obvious on the surface. But any sufficiently detailed paper map, digested and interpreted by the reader, would also suggest the same alternate routings as the smartphone apps. Google and Waze didn't create them.

Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.

[empirestate]

"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."

Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?

Sure it is. People completely admit to it.

Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.

(*People like us excluded.  )

Of course, it does seem obvious on the surface. But any sufficiently detailed paper map, digested and interpreted by the reader, would also suggest the same alternate routings as the smartphone apps. Google and Waze didn't create them.

Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.

Right; that's part of the "digesting and interpreting". So it's something to do with the use of the information, not the information itself.

[webny99]

I'll often see "shortcuts" on a map. But I'm never sure if they'll be faster, due to unknown factors (stop signs? red lights? pedestrians?). Because of those unknowns, I'm skeptical of recommending the shortcut to the driver. If we lose time, I look like a fool.

[kalvado]

I'll often see "shortcuts" on a map. But I'm never sure if they'll be faster, due to unknown factors (stop signs? red lights? pedestrians?). Because of those unknowns, I'm skeptical of recommending the shortcut to the driver. If we lose time, I look like a fool.

If that shortcut is along your daily commute, you just try it once and try to remember how it works. Doesn't work for one-off trips, but I suspect this issue is mostly about commuters..

[signalman]

"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze…"

Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?

Sure it is. People completely admit to it.

Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.

(*People like us excluded.  )

I also concur with these sentiments.  I live on a narrow and somewhat twisty and hilly road.  The road is like a horseshoe in that it connects out to a main road on either end, however, it changes name midway.   Several few years ago the main road had speed humps installed to discourage speeding (SL is 25 and widely ignored, and in fairness it can easily be driven 35-40).  Naturally, residents complained to the town and likely the local police about speeding.  The speed humps became the traffic calming solution.  Thru traffic continued using the road and slowing down for the speed humps.  Fast forward some when GPS became prevalent and lo and behold, people saw that my road bypasses said humps (many didn't realize it was a thru road since it has a different name at either end connecting to the main road).  Needless to say, my road saw an uptick in traffic, especially by non locals looking to avoid the speed humps.  I'm not sure if navigation apps increased the usage on my road, but I wouldn't be surprised.  Anyway, I'm not complaining, as I acknowledge that it's a public road, however some tend to travel quite fast and reckless (the road is narrow with hills and twisty as I noted) and indeed accidents, some head-on have occurred as a result of careless/reckless driving.  I guess my point is that just because it bypasses traffic calming, I wouldn't say it's faster if it's driven safely.  It certainly isn't faster if one encounters one of the accidents that I mentioned because it would block the road completely, perhaps a motorcycle could squeeze by.

[empirestate]

"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."

Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?

Sure it is. People completely admit to it.

Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.

(*People like us excluded.  )

I also concur with these sentiments. [...] I guess my point is that just because it bypasses traffic calming, I wouldn't say it's faster if it's driven safely.  It certainly isn't faster if one encounters one of the accidents that I mentioned because it would block the road completely, perhaps a motorcycle could squeeze by.

I thought your point was supposed to be that it was a byproduct of Google/Waze, not that it isn't faster even though it bypasses traffic calming.

[webny99]

I'll often see "shortcuts" on a map. But I'm never sure if they'll be faster, due to unknown factors (stop signs? red lights? pedestrians?). Because of those unknowns, I'm skeptical of recommending the shortcut to the driver. If we lose time, I look like a fool.

If that shortcut is along your daily commute, you just try it once and try to remember how it works. Doesn't work for one-off trips, but I suspect this issue is mostly about commuters..

I was under the impression that we were discussing one-off, or at least irregular, trips. In any case, I have no need for a map on my commutes, and unless there's an unforeseen delay (like an accident), there's no shortcuts worth taking.

Now, if there was some good shortcuts on my commute, I wouldn't hesitate to use them. My comment about being skeptical of shortcuts was solely applicable to areas I'm unfamiliar with.

[jeffandnicole]

"This is a byproduct of Google Maps and Waze..."

Are we just gonna keep blowing past the fact that, no, it's not?

Sure it is. People completely admit to it.

Concur. It's doubtful that a lot of people* would know surface routes to take if not for smartphone routing.

(*People like us excluded.  )

Of course, it does seem obvious on the surface. But any sufficiently detailed paper map, digested and interpreted by the reader, would also suggest the same alternate routings as the smartphone apps. Google and Waze didn't create them.

Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.

Right; that's part of the "digesting and interpreting". So it's something to do with the use of the information, not the information itself.

These roads have always been there. Little difference in traffic. Waze becomes popular. Large increase in traffic.

Most people in the past had atlases or state maps. Few had county maps. Extremely few had county maps not for their own county.  So while the info had always been available, most didn't take the time to try to figure out a shorter route.

Now with Waze, they don't need to figure it out. They just listen and follow the directions. Heck, the options could change daily. The driver doesn't care...they may not even remember the route. Don't need to. Waze will tell them what to do tomorrow as well.

[kalvado]

I was under the impression that we were discussing one-off, or at least irregular, trips. In any case, I have no need for a map on my commutes, and unless there's an unforeseen delay (like an accident), there's no shortcuts worth taking.

Now, if there was some good shortcuts on my commute, I wouldn't hesitate to use them. My comment about being skeptical of shortcuts was solely applicable to areas I'm unfamiliar with.

If you will, this boils down to question "who actually drives into Manhattan?" as original article  talks about approaches to a bridge between NJ and NYC.
I'm afraid there is more commuter traffic than out-of-area traffic in that particular spot - and I wouldn't be surprised if it is local drivers conditioned to congested roads that are embracing the use of whatever needs to bring them home a few minutes earlier. Besides, we're talking about narrow side streets where  heavy commercial vehicles simply will not fit.
It may go both ways as long haul driver is more likely to use some form of directions assistance. However Waze mentioned their app is used  by 20% of drivers in Los Angeles area - and that means significant number of commuters use it as I don't believe in 20% traffic being non-commuters.

[briantroutman]

I was under the impression that we were discussing one-off, or at least irregular, trips. In any case, I have no need for a map on my commutes, and unless there's an unforeseen delay (like an accident), there's no shortcuts worth taking.

I think you might be assuming that navigation apps like Waze are used by out-of-towners rather than commuters since, if you're in your own city driving a route you take everyday, why would you need navigational assistance–right?

In my experience, particularly in very dense, traffic-choked urban areas, many people blindly rely on GPS navigation every single time they get in their cars–even on their daily commute and for short trips in familiar areas not far from their homes. This is especially true of many of my co-workers/associates in the S.F. Bay Area. And they're not slaves to Waze merely because they're lazy or stupid: The potential cost of not relying on a system that has up-to-the-second information on current traffic conditions is just too great.

Even if you invested the time to find all of the shortcuts along your regular route, you couldn't possibly know that, for example, unplanned utility work has closed one of your reliable alternates. In my estimation, navigation apps like Google Maps and Waze truly are a case of taking something that was already possible (looking at maps, seeking an alternate route) and turbocharging it to the point that it becomes an entirely different proposition.

As to whether the results of this newfound utilization of alternate routes is a good thing or not, that's a difficult and complicated question. Certainly, people have the right to freedom of movement and can utilize whatever public roads they wish. And if drawing upon the collective knowledge generated by other motorists allows them to make use of unutilized road capacity and reduce the overall level of level of congestion, that's a generally a good thing.

But is it a desirable outcome if 100,000 commuters have their already hellish hour-long commutes shortened by a minute at the cost of 1,000 people in a residential neighborhood having their trip to the corner grocery store increased by 100 minutes? That's an extreme (and unlikely) scenario, but you get the idea: A massive number of people experience an almost imperceptible benefit at the expense of a relative few people's neighborhood peace being completely destroyed.

[empirestate]

Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.

Right; that's part of the "digesting and interpreting". So it's something to do with the use of the information, not the information itself.

These roads have always been there. Little difference in traffic. Waze becomes popular. Large increase in traffic.

Most people in the past had atlases or state maps. Few had county maps. Extremely few had county maps not for their own county.  So while the info had always been available, most didn't take the time to try to figure out a shorter route.

Now with Waze, they don't need to figure it out. They just listen and follow the directions. Heck, the options could change daily. The driver doesn't care...they may not even remember the route. Don't need to. Waze will tell them what to do tomorrow as well.

Exactly–you're honing in on it there. The information was always there, on paper maps, but few people bought them. And if they did, they didn't bother to use them. The traffic is a byproduct of these behaviors, not of the apps themselves. (Otherwise, it would also have been a byproduct of the paper maps.)

[jeffandnicole]

Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.

Right; that's part of the "digesting and interpreting". So it's something to do with the use of the information, not the information itself.

These roads have always been there. Little difference in traffic. Waze becomes popular. Large increase in traffic.

Most people in the past had atlases or state maps. Few had county maps. Extremely few had county maps not for their own county.  So while the info had always been available, most didn't take the time to try to figure out a shorter route.

Now with Waze, they don't need to figure it out. They just listen and follow the directions. Heck, the options could change daily. The driver doesn't care...they may not even remember the route. Don't need to. Waze will tell them what to do tomorrow as well.

Exactly–you're honing in on it there. The information was always there, on paper maps, but few people bought them. And if they did, they didn't bother to use them. The traffic is a byproduct of these behaviors, not of the apps themselves. (Otherwise, it would also have been a byproduct of the paper maps.)

Huh?

No...it's a byproduct of the apps.

[kalvado]

No...it's a byproduct of the apps.

And retail stores struggle is a byproduct of online commerce; politicians falling out of favor is a product of information becoming available, and more people dealing with cancer is a product of better diagnostics and care.
This is irrelevant, honestly speaking - as road capacity stalled and traffic keep growing, such sideways would open up, one way or the other.

[webny99]

I was under the impression that we were discussing one-off, or at least irregular, trips. In any case, I have no need for a map on my commutes, and unless there's an unforeseen delay (like an accident), there's no shortcuts worth taking.

I think you might be assuming that navigation apps like Waze are used by out-of-towners rather than commuters since, if you're in your own city driving a route you take everyday, why would you need navigational assistance–right?

You certainly nailed my thought process... but I didn't consider it an assumption at all. In the mind of a roadgeek, that was the only possible conclusion

In my experience, particularly in very dense, traffic-choked urban areas, many people blindly rely on GPS navigation every single time they get in their cars–even on their daily commute and for short trips in familiar areas not far from their homes. This is especially true of many of my co-workers/associates in the S.F. Bay Area. And they're not slaves to Waze merely because they're lazy or stupid: The potential cost of not relying on a system that has up-to-the-second information on current traffic conditions is just too great.

I can certainly see that in a large metro, like the Bay area, with constant congestion. In fact, I recall my host in San Fran using Waze and being mildly surprised, assuming they needed it to get downtown, which I thought was strange. My surprise, of course, was a byproduct of:
(1) being a roadgeek
(2) living in a rust belt city with plenty of highway capacity
(3) my having a (reverse direction) suburb-to-suburb commute.

The thought that Waze would help me in my commute to exurban Webster is almost laughable... but I can easily see how commuters in congestion-plagued metros could come to benefit from it and thus depend on it.

[webny99]

Paper maps would show that it's shorter, but not necessarily that it's faster.

Right; that's part of the "digesting and interpreting". So it's something to do with the use of the information, not the information itself.

These roads have always been there. Little difference in traffic. Waze becomes popular. Large increase in traffic.

Most people in the past had atlases or state maps. Few had county maps. Extremely few had county maps not for their own county.  So while the info had always been available, most didn't take the time to try to figure out a shorter route.

Now with Waze, they don't need to figure it out. They just listen and follow the directions. Heck, the options could change daily. The driver doesn't care...they may not even remember the route. Don't need to. Waze will tell them what to do tomorrow as well.

Exactly–you're honing in on it there. The information was always there, on paper maps, but few people bought them. And if they did, they didn't bother to use them. The traffic is a byproduct of these behaviors, not of the apps themselves. (Otherwise, it would also have been a byproduct of the paper maps.)

Huh?

No...it's a byproduct of the apps.

It's not really, though: it's a byproduct of the app's accommodation for people's laziness. If people were concerned enough to save time, they easily could have found the shortcut themselves using a paper map. The apps make people more likely to use the shortcut (by recommending it)... but the driver is solely to blame for not knowing about the available shortcut in the first place.