News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Traffic-weary homeowners and Waze are at war, again. Guess who’s winning?

Started by AlexandriaVA, June 05, 2016, 11:00:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

vdeane

Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2016, 01:43:47 PM
Most infrastructure was built when population was half of what it is. Now twice as many people cannot sacrifice even as much resources for roads as smaller population did... You cannot have the cake and eat it too - we're paying by time instead of money... 
Not just that... the number of working people per capita was also half what it is now because a middle class family could live on one income.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.


empirestate

Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2016, 01:43:47 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 07, 2016, 12:36:15 PM
Right, all of which would amount to a violation in the Madrid example (if the ordinance truly does close  the street to all but residents' vehicles), but may arguably not be a violation in the other two cases. That's the principal difference I can see.
Ah, finally I got your point!

Yeah, the point to which I was directly responding kept getting clipped off of the quotes.



iPhone

Sykotyk

There's a difference between an app saying "this is a faster way" and the mass migration of people all using that and similar navigation apps that say 'this is the way' given the current variables.

That's the problem. The navigation apps switched from being a single-person routing-finding app and turned into a hive-minded non-coordinated traffic rerouter. It spawns its own problems. Of which, you can't anticipate because the app doesn't realize it's the fault of if its own routing. It doesn't care, either. Traffic engineering (which it's doing in real time) isn't really it's purpose and therefore not its concern.

Easy way to correct this is pass a law that navigation systems used in the municipality cannot use that street to syphon through traffic. Spend one day with an officer at the far end of the street and ticket everyone that comes through without stopping at a house. One by one. Problem solved in about a day. The angry drivers can take it up with whatever navigation system company they've purchased or used theirs through.

kalvado

Quote from: Sykotyk on June 07, 2016, 03:36:29 PM
There's a difference between an app saying "this is a faster way" and the mass migration of people all using that and similar navigation apps that say 'this is the way' given the current variables.

That's the problem. The navigation apps switched from being a single-person routing-finding app and turned into a hive-minded non-coordinated traffic rerouter. It spawns its own problems. Of which, you can't anticipate because the app doesn't realize it's the fault of if its own routing. It doesn't care, either. Traffic engineering (which it's doing in real time) isn't really it's purpose and therefore not its concern.

Easy way to correct this is pass a law that navigation systems used in the municipality cannot use that street to syphon through traffic. Spend one day with an officer at the far end of the street and ticket everyone that comes through without stopping at a house. One by one. Problem solved in about a day. The angry drivers can take it up with whatever navigation system company they've purchased or used theirs through.

Better ban public funding of any road that is not fully accessible by general public. Much easier to enforce and saves money for maintenance of actually used roads. Just withhold highway funds from states which are not willing to play by the rule, and problem will be solved within next week or so.

kkt

Quote from: vdeane on June 07, 2016, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2016, 01:43:47 PM
Most infrastructure was built when population was half of what it is. Now twice as many people cannot sacrifice even as much resources for roads as smaller population did... You cannot have the cake and eat it too - we're paying by time instead of money... 
Not just that... the number of working people per capita was also half what it is now because a middle class family could live on one income.

Very good point.  The homemaker might just do errands by bus, bicycle, or foot, or not do errands on days the wageearner drove to work, but no matter what there would be less car traffic per household.

kkt

Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2016, 03:48:49 PM
Better ban public funding of any road that is not fully accessible by general public. Much easier to enforce and saves money for maintenance of actually used roads. Just withhold highway funds from states which are not willing to play by the rule, and problem will be solved within next week or so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in jurisdictions I'm familiar with, state and federal funds pay nothing toward local roads.

Usually the local roads are built by the developer who subdivided them, and maintenance is paid for by property taxes at the city or county level.  So it's the people who live nearby who are paying for it.

kalvado

Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2016, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2016, 03:48:49 PM
Better ban public funding of any road that is not fully accessible by general public. Much easier to enforce and saves money for maintenance of actually used roads. Just withhold highway funds from states which are not willing to play by the rule, and problem will be solved within next week or so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in jurisdictions I'm familiar with, state and federal funds pay nothing toward local roads.

Usually the local roads are built by the developer who subdivided them, and maintenance is paid for by property taxes at the city or county level.  So it's the people who live nearby who are paying for it.

Just name the jurisdiction and lets look at their budget.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2016, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2016, 03:48:49 PM
Better ban public funding of any road that is not fully accessible by general public. Much easier to enforce and saves money for maintenance of actually used roads. Just withhold highway funds from states which are not willing to play by the rule, and problem will be solved within next week or so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in jurisdictions I'm familiar with, state and federal funds pay nothing toward local roads.

Usually the local roads are built by the developer who subdivided them, and maintenance is paid for by property taxes at the city or county level.  So it's the people who live nearby who are paying for it.


I can tell you in NJ developers typically pay very little towards road widening and improvements.  The state typically provides grants to municipalities to assist with some of their road and road-related projects, and there are federal grants that can be applied for as well.

empirestate

Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2016, 04:01:39 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2016, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2016, 03:48:49 PM
Better ban public funding of any road that is not fully accessible by general public. Much easier to enforce and saves money for maintenance of actually used roads. Just withhold highway funds from states which are not willing to play by the rule, and problem will be solved within next week or so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in jurisdictions I'm familiar with, state and federal funds pay nothing toward local roads.

Usually the local roads are built by the developer who subdivided them, and maintenance is paid for by property taxes at the city or county level.  So it's the people who live nearby who are paying for it.

Just name the jurisdiction and lets look at their budget.

It's not a question of funding, it's a a question of right-of-way. To what extent can a government prohibit a subset of the public from using a public thoroughfare?

(My guess is that the answer lies in being able to restrict a highway to certain modes of transportation–i.e., motor vehicles–but again, is this something that can be enacted only for some motor vehicles and not others? Do the property owners along a public road have more right-of-way to that road than a non-owner does?)


iPhone

kalvado

Quote from: empirestate on June 07, 2016, 04:21:59 PM

It's not a question of funding, it's a a question of right-of-way. To what extent can a government prohibit a subset of the public from using a public thoroughfare?

(My guess is that the answer lies in being able to restrict a highway to certain modes of transportation–i.e., motor vehicles–but again, is this something that can be enacted only for some motor vehicles and not others? Do the property owners along a public road have more right-of-way to that road than a non-owner does?)

Well, commercial traffic is in the league of its own with different rules to play.
Safety is always a simple excuse. No turns, weight limit, speed limit - those are common.
As for same type vehicle going on same exact road.. My impression is that would be difficult. If you want to  ban non-local by residence, out-of-state plates come into play, and federal regulations should kick in. If there was a way to charge/restrict for out of state plates, NY would be doing that  since beginning of times.. 

On the other hand, parking restricted to locals is common enough. However, parking and passing are two different animals.

CNGL-Leudimin

Quote from: empirestate on June 07, 2016, 12:36:15 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on June 07, 2016, 11:58:28 AM
Living on the street / in the neighborhood is a pretty weak criteria to go on. What if you are visiting someone who does live there? Do you have to find parking on a different street and walk there? On the other hand, what if you do live there, but are cutting through on an unrelated trip? And if it's a longer street (unlike the single block in the Madrid example), either they have to stop everyone exiting the area just to check their address (is that even permitted?) or follow the car until it's clear it hasn't stopped in the local traffic area. Neither makes a lot of sense.

Weak or not, that would be the criterion. Your question was how a residency requirement would differ from "No Thru Traffic" or "Local Traffic Only". The difference would be the criterion.

Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2016, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: empirestate on June 07, 2016, 11:35:12 AM

The most obvious thing would be that restricting it to local residents gives you a concrete method of determining whether there's a violation: if the vehicle isn't registered to an address on the street, you've violated the regulation.
-I am delivering/ dropping off a friend/ picking up relative form the location
-My friends invited me for party/ asked to feed their cat and water plants in their house during vacation
-I am meeting with realtor to show a house in 15 minutes
-Soliciting donations for charity

And a few million other possible - many not  verifiable - explanations.

Right, all of which would amount to a violation in the Madrid example (if the ordinance truly does close  the street to all but residents' vehicles), but may arguably not be a violation in the other two cases. That's the principal difference I can see.

Yup, AFAIK the ordinance closes not just a street but a whole neighborhood to all traffic except local residents, loading and unloading, and urban buses (if any). One has to apply for a permit, otherwise it would face a fine, and this is enforced by cameras placed at the entrances and exits of the restricted areas. A similar system is in place in my hometown.
Supporter of the construction of several running gags, including I-366 with a speed limit of 85 mph (137 km/h) and the Hypotenuse.

Please note that I may mention "invalid" FM channels, i.e. ending in an even number or down to 87.5. These are valid in Europe.

empirestate

Quote from: CNGL-Leudimin on June 07, 2016, 04:54:12 PM
Yup, AFAIK the ordinance closes not just a street but a whole neighborhood to all traffic except local residents, loading and unloading, and urban buses (if any). One has to apply for a permit, otherwise it would face a fine, and this is enforced by cameras placed at the entrances and exits of the restricted areas. A similar system is in place in my hometown.

How does Spanish ROW law differ from US law to allow this (if at all)?


Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2016, 04:40:58 PMWell, commercial traffic is in the league of its own with different rules to play.
Safety is always a simple excuse. No turns, weight limit, speed limit - those are common.
As for same type vehicle going on same exact road.. My impression is that would be difficult. If you want to  ban non-local by residence, out-of-state plates come into play, and federal regulations should kick in. If there was a way to charge/restrict for out of state plates, NY would be doing that  since beginning of times.. 

On the other hand, parking restricted to locals is common enough. However, parking and passing are two different animals.

Parking makes sense, since it's the human that enjoys right-of-way, not the vehicle. You have every right to pass along the road, but not to deposit a piece of machinery alongside it. A similar principle could be applied to commercial vehicles; presumably, even though the vehicles themselves may be banned, their occupants would still be allowed to pass along the road to ply their trade.

Out-of-state plate prohibition doesn't work, of course, since it suggests that other states' registration practices carry less weight than the home state's, which is a big no-no (reciprocity and all that).



iPhone

vdeane

I have an idea that doesn't run into the issue of banning certain people from public roads (which I believe is problematic despite my sympathy for the homeowners): ban Waze and other services from sending large amounts of traffic down local roads.  Tell the companies that they must change their algorithms so they don't create a fire hose of cars on these streets that can't handle that kind of traffic or the app will be banned, the company find, and anyone caught using the app for navigation given a ticket.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

empirestate

Quote from: vdeane on June 07, 2016, 07:43:46 PM
I have an idea that doesn't run into the issue of banning certain people from public roads (which I believe is problematic despite my sympathy for the homeowners): ban Waze and other services from sending large amounts of traffic down local roads.  Tell the companies that they must change their algorithms so they don't create a fire hose of cars on these streets that can't handle that kind of traffic or the app will be banned, the company find, and anyone caught using the app for navigation given a ticket.

But then you run into free market concerns...on what grounds can the government require the company to modify its software that way?

vdeane

I would say that the well-being of the people who live and drive on the road takes precedence over the free market.  By letting their defective code run wild, Waze is destroying the ability to equitably use public infrastructure and creating a tragedy of the commons situation.  The fact that they are not fixing the code and are actively thwarting people who are attempting to prevent the jams is clear evidence that this destruction is willful and with intent.  Businesses exist from a functional perspective to provide goods and services to the public.  The moment they start doing a disservice to the public or any subset thereof is the moment they need to get shut down.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

AlexandriaVA

QuoteWaze is destroying the ability to equitably use public infrastructure

I'd argue that by letting more of the public know about public infrastructure, there's more equality.


QuoteThe moment they start doing a disservice to the public or any subset thereof is the moment they need to get shut down.

Most of the public loves Waze, and shutting Waze would be a disservice to the general public.

Get off your high horse.

cl94

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 07, 2016, 08:29:16 PM
QuoteWaze is destroying the ability to equitably use public infrastructure

I'd argue that by letting more of the public know about public infrastructure, there's more equality.


QuoteThe moment they start doing a disservice to the public or any subset thereof is the moment they need to get shut down.

Most of the public loves Waze, and shutting Waze would be a disservice to the general public.

Get off your high horse.

Waze is a transportation engineer's dream come true. Instead of us needing to design systems that tell people the travel times along each route in order to distribute traffic, a private company did it for us (using virtually identical algorithms), saving the taxpayers money. Many government agencies use the app to track traffic, incidents, and hazards (i.e. potholes) in real time. Yes, people on the shortcut routes are inconvenienced. In the time I have been using Waze, it has yet to send me down a route I have not considered, and this includes some pretty hidden back roads. Going back to the Northway example, Waze is how I determine the best way to get around that mess (whether it's worth sitting in the traffic on NY 7 or if local roads should be used instead).
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Thing 342

Quote from: vdeane on June 07, 2016, 07:43:46 PM
I have an idea that doesn't run into the issue of banning certain people from public roads (which I believe is problematic despite my sympathy for the homeowners): ban Waze and other services from sending large amounts of traffic down local roads.  Tell the companies that they must change their algorithms so they don't create a fire hose of cars on these streets that can't handle that kind of traffic or the app will be banned, the company find, and anyone caught using the app for navigation given a ticket.

I would say that the well-being of the people who live and drive on the road takes precedence over the free market.  By letting their defective code run wild, Waze is destroying the ability to equitably use public infrastructure and creating a tragedy of the commons situation.  The fact that they are not fixing the code and are actively thwarting people who are attempting to prevent the jams is clear evidence that this destruction is willful and with intent.  Businesses exist from a functional perspective to provide goods and services to the public.  The moment they start doing a disservice to the public or any subset thereof is the moment they need to get shut down.
Why should a private enterprise be forced to expend resources to fix a problem that's the government's responsibility? Software developers can't just wave a magic wand and have a new feature suddenly deployed across its entire userbase (despite what many in government seem to think). The current problem is merely just a symptom of stage agencies' inability to foresee future development patterns and adapt to new circumstances (for a variety of reasons, many of which stem from funding). After all, Waze would not be routing users along this road were it not a faster route. Banning a much-used service because you couldn't regulate away the problem is itself a disservice to the public.

empirestate

Quote from: vdeane on June 07, 2016, 08:11:14 PM
I would say that the well-being of the people who live and drive on the road takes precedence over the free market.

That's fine, but with all due respect, what you would say is not a principle that can actually be applied. What legitimate government interest, under what law, would justify compelling the company to make the proposed changes?

cl94

Quote from: empirestate on June 07, 2016, 08:58:29 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 07, 2016, 08:11:14 PM
I would say that the well-being of the people who live and drive on the road takes precedence over the free market.

That's fine, but with all due respect, what you would say is not a principle that can actually be applied. What legitimate government interest, under what law, would justify compelling the company to make the proposed changes?

And remember the company of interest: Google. Think they'll back down easily if there's not a legal reason for them to?
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

Rothman

Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2016, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2016, 03:48:49 PM
Better ban public funding of any road that is not fully accessible by general public. Much easier to enforce and saves money for maintenance of actually used roads. Just withhold highway funds from states which are not willing to play by the rule, and problem will be solved within next week or so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in jurisdictions I'm familiar with, state and federal funds pay nothing toward local roads.


At least in NY, you are to be corrected.  In NY, there are locally-owned roads that are eligible for federal-aid and federal-aid does fund a lot of local road work.  However, if a locally-owned road is not federal-aid eligible, the locality is on the hook.  State funds can only be used on local facilities under very, very specific circumstances (e.g., one case I'm aware of involved the Willis Ave. Bridge in NYC, where State Dedicated Funds (SDF) were used for a portion of the project).
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kkt

Quote from: vdeane on June 07, 2016, 07:43:46 PM
I have an idea that doesn't run into the issue of banning certain people from public roads (which I believe is problematic despite my sympathy for the homeowners): ban Waze and other services from sending large amounts of traffic down local roads.  Tell the companies that they must change their algorithms so they don't create a fire hose of cars on these streets that can't handle that kind of traffic or the app will be banned, the company find, and anyone caught using the app for navigation given a ticket.

I have a lot of sympathy for the homeowners, but I think Waze and similar companies have a pretty compelling 1st amendment free speech right to distribute their informed opinion about routing.

Ban trucks, except for local deliveries.  Narrow the road, put in traffic circles, and lower the speed limit.  Enforce the speed limit.  If all else fails, consider a maze of one-ways (yes, I hate those too).

kkt

Quote from: Rothman on June 08, 2016, 08:21:51 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 07, 2016, 03:52:48 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 07, 2016, 03:48:49 PM
Better ban public funding of any road that is not fully accessible by general public. Much easier to enforce and saves money for maintenance of actually used roads. Just withhold highway funds from states which are not willing to play by the rule, and problem will be solved within next week or so.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in jurisdictions I'm familiar with, state and federal funds pay nothing toward local roads.


At least in NY, you are to be corrected.  In NY, there are locally-owned roads that are eligible for federal-aid and federal-aid does fund a lot of local road work.  However, if a locally-owned road is not federal-aid eligible, the locality is on the hook.  State funds can only be used on local facilities under very, very specific circumstances (e.g., one case I'm aware of involved the Willis Ave. Bridge in NYC, where State Dedicated Funds (SDF) were used for a portion of the project).

Okay, thanks for the info.

cl94

Quote from: kkt on June 08, 2016, 12:27:41 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 07, 2016, 07:43:46 PM
I have an idea that doesn't run into the issue of banning certain people from public roads (which I believe is problematic despite my sympathy for the homeowners): ban Waze and other services from sending large amounts of traffic down local roads.  Tell the companies that they must change their algorithms so they don't create a fire hose of cars on these streets that can't handle that kind of traffic or the app will be banned, the company find, and anyone caught using the app for navigation given a ticket.

I have a lot of sympathy for the homeowners, but I think Waze and similar companies have a pretty compelling 1st amendment free speech right to distribute their informed opinion about routing.

Ban trucks, except for local deliveries.  Narrow the road, put in traffic circles, and lower the speed limit.  Enforce the speed limit.  If all else fails, consider a maze of one-ways (yes, I hate those too).

That's my point. There are perfectly legal ways to lower travel speeds to make routes slower.
Please note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of my employer or any of its partner agencies.

Travel Mapping (updated weekly)

jeffandnicole

When I type directions into Google, it generally gives me routes that don't involve residential streets.  Depending on the start and ending location, 2 of the 3 options are generally involving just main roads.  The 3rd option may include a residential road, but it still wasn't the absolute shortest route, it was for the residential route that provided a straight path, sorta like what we're talking about in this thread.

But again, it gave that option last, not first, unlike what Waze does.

Quote from: kkt on June 08, 2016, 12:27:41 PM
Ban trucks, except for local deliveries.  Narrow the road, put in traffic circles, and lower the speed limit.  Enforce the speed limit.  If all else fails, consider a maze of one-ways (yes, I hate those too).

All of which make it worse for the residents in that area.  It's one thing when you move into a neighborhood knowing that exists.  It's another thing when the homeowners need to go thru a lot of hassle because of a single, minor construction project on a main road that was only going to last for a few days, and now they're going to have to deal with this issue for quite a while. 




Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.