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

[hotdogPi]

Even when things are not particularly trafficky, Google tends to overestimate average speeds on surface streets in NYC because their algorithm is failing to properly account for the impact of the city's generally poorly coordinated signals.

Poorly coordinated? You can get over 50 green lights in a row.

[cl94]

Even when things are not particularly trafficky, Google tends to overestimate average speeds on surface streets in NYC because their algorithm is failing to properly account for the impact of the city's generally poorly coordinated signals.

Poorly coordinated? You can get over 50 green lights in a row.

Try getting around the outer boroughs. The signals are miserable now that the speed limit went down and they installed speed cameras.

[cl94]

Heck, Google Maps routes people down that side street depending on the time of day. Don't blame technology for finding the fastest route- blame the government for making it so the residential neighborhood is the fastest route.

[jeffandnicole]

I enjoin anyone who sides with the homeowners here to never use a side street when driving around a major metro area, or really any area where they don't live.

The way I see it is that a road is either public or it isn't. If the citizens of the neigborhood want to purchase the road from the local government, then they might begin to have a case, but I highly doubt anyone would bother.

Besides, if a neighborhood road becomes too backed-up, then Waze users won't bother using it. It's self-correcting.

You are clearly not getting it.  No one here is saying people shouldn't be permitted to use a public road.  The main gist is that these mapping programs shouldn't be using undersized residential side streets to send obscene amounts of traffic down as a detour route.

And you've yet to comment if this would be acceptable to you if you lived on such a side street, especially if it seriously hindered you getting to or from your house.

As a researcher in the field, I can say that stuff like Waze is what we've been wanting for a while: technology that routes vehicles in a way that optimizes available capacity to achieve the system optimal. If you don't want people driving down your street, live on a dead-end road or in a gated community where the public isn't allowed. It's a public road, not your road. I have zero sympathy for these people. Once you start banning people from public property, a new legal can of worms is opened.

Lots of public property restricts access to authorized individuals only. Try walking into the White House and see how far you get.

My typical response here is prison.  People will spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to avoid this public space their tax dollars paid for.

[AlexandriaVA]

No one here is saying people shouldn't be permitted to use a public road. The main gist is that these mapping programs shouldn't be using undersized residential side streets to send obscene amounts of traffic down as a detour route.

As a taxpayer, I would hope that resources would be as efficiently allocated as possible. What's the point of building a public road if the entirety of the public doesn't have an equal chance to use it? People are more than welcome to build private roads but I think they'd find it's not very efficient.

And you've yet to comment if this would be acceptable to you if you lived on such a side street, especially if it seriously hindered you getting to or from your house.

I don't really see the relevance, but I find it acceptable. In fact, I live on a street which is often used as an alternate route to VA-7 in Alexandria. I knew the road existed when I signed the lease.

I don't know of many cases where people literally can't get out of their driveways, so that doesn't really register to me. People exaggerate that stuff anyway. People are so used to leaving their driveway immediately, that if they get held up by even 30 seconds, they'll claim they were stuck in their driveway for a "long time".

[noelbotevera]

Blame the bad road networks. My neighborhood is designed to have multiple exits to the main road (two exist), but there is no way to cut through, since they all dead end or just lead you in a loop. I actually like this, and usually the streets are quiet in that I don't have to hear a conga line of car engines cutting through my neighborhood.

It's a public road, and it's ok if I have other people driving down the street outside my porch. But when THAT happens, I should say "Your taxpayer dollars at work." and have second thoughts about why this road was constructed in such a way.

There's reasons why I will never trust a GPS, and this is one of them.

[cl94]

I don't know of many cases where people literally can't get out of their driveways, so that doesn't really register to me. People exaggerate that stuff anyway. People are so used to leaving their driveway immediately, that if they get held up by even 30 seconds, they'll claim they were stuck in their driveway for a "long time".

Except when I was an undergrad at UB, I have lived on a major road for my entire life. Even where I live now, I consider myself lucky if I get out in under a minute. I knew this going in and I really don't have a problem with it. These people live in one of the densest metropolitan areas in the country. Sooner or later, people were going to find the empty side streets to bypass the traffic. Then again, as a licensed transportation engineer, I might see things a little differently than most people.

[AlexandriaVA]

No I agree. The roads were always there and available. People are now just pissed that others know about their "secret" roads.

It's no different than if an app like Yelp lets you know about a previously-hidden restaurant and then it's all of a sudden difficult to get a table. Such is life.

[kalvado]

I enjoin anyone who sides with the homeowners here to never use a side street when driving around a major metro area, or really any area where they don't live.

The way I see it is that a road is either public or it isn't. If the citizens of the neigborhood want to purchase the road from the local government, then they might begin to have a case, but I highly doubt anyone would bother.

Besides, if a neighborhood road becomes too backed-up, then Waze users won't bother using it. It's self-correcting.

It's not a binary issue.  A few people on a side street for whatever reason is one thing 10k or more, on the other hand, is a different matter.  As I said, the people living there need to be able to get in and out of their driveways.  Making it impossible for them to get to/from their homes is an unreasonable infringement on their quality of life (one that I have experienced a couple times on a road I commute on (Forts Ferry for the curious), thanks to a water main break and the opening of a nearby Sonic (on the day it opened, the line extended onto the Northway SB lanes past the Twin Bridges (not exaggerating), and it took a month or two for the Sonic Effect to dissipate to reasonable levels, and a few more for all the effects to go away, most notably the opening of the Sonic driveway directly off of NY 7 WB)).  People who live in/near an area have rights too.  I would not consider "the road will get jammed because some stupid app developers are unable to prevent their code from routing thousands of people down a street that can't handle those traffic counts" to be a reasonable thing that one could predict.

Somewhat philosophical question.. I am getting home through one of very heavily used intersections, and pretty much the only alternative is a 10 mile detour.
I don't dare that intersection during rush hour (and thanks god, I can do that with my schedule), even reasonably late in commute cycle, 3-4 traffic cycle wait is not uncommon. 1 mile traffic queue and a wait that easily approaches 10 minutes, especially if a pedestrians initiates 36 second walk phase. Should I call that  " unreasonable infringement on their quality of life " and demand immediate action from NYSDOT? Should people waiting in daily backup on Twin Bridges do the same?

[bzakharin]

Also, while it isn't relevant for law in the US, there is precedent from other countries of doing this sort of thing. The city of Madrid has signs like these, which state that the street in question is closed to all cars except those belonging to local residents.

How different is this really from "No Thru Traffic" and "Local Traffic Only" signs? Is it any easier to enforce?

[kalvado]

Also, while it isn't relevant for law in the US, there is precedent from other countries of doing this sort of thing. The city of Madrid has signs like these, which state that the street in question is closed to all cars except those belonging to local residents.

How different is this really from "No Thru Traffic" and "Local Traffic Only" signs? Is it any easier to enforce?

I assume many drivers would just accept the sign. And if sign makes it way to the map database, that may eliminate the routing completely.

[cl94]

Also, while it isn't relevant for law in the US, there is precedent from other countries of doing this sort of thing. The city of Madrid has signs like these, which state that the street in question is closed to all cars except those belonging to local residents.

How different is this really from "No Thru Traffic" and "Local Traffic Only" signs? Is it any easier to enforce?

Laws might be different. Other than trucks, which are required to follow legally-designated truck routes, you can't enforce them in the US. Spanish law might allow for enforcement.

[bzakharin]

Also, while it isn't relevant for law in the US, there is precedent from other countries of doing this sort of thing. The city of Madrid has signs like these, which state that the street in question is closed to all cars except those belonging to local residents.

How different is this really from "No Thru Traffic" and "Local Traffic Only" signs? Is it any easier to enforce?

Laws might be different. Other than trucks, which are required to follow legally-designated truck routes, you can't enforce them in the US. Spanish law might allow for enforcement.

It seems like it depends on where you live:
http://bloomingdaleneighborhood.blogspot.com/2012/05/mcmillan-how-local-traffic-only-signs.html
http://www.myfloridalegal.com/ago.nsf/Opinions/B762787E37D4A3CD85256E620055999C
http://pugetsoundblogs.com/roadwarrior/2010/12/28/local-traffic-only-signs-are-tough-to-enforce/

[empirestate]

Also, while it isn't relevant for law in the US, there is precedent from other countries of doing this sort of thing. The city of Madrid has signs like these, which state that the street in question is closed to all cars except those belonging to local residents.

How different is this really from "No Thru Traffic" and "Local Traffic Only" signs? Is it any easier to enforce?

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. "Local Traffic Only" could mean something similar if it's defined by statute, but with "No Thru Traffic", how exactly do you determine a violation? (I posted a thread about this very question some time back.)

An additional consideration would be whether a public right-of-way can in fact be closed to a segment of the public, and if so, to what extent and by what means?


iPhone

[AlexandriaVA]

Again, I recommend that people buy easements from their respective local or state governments to restrict access or put quots on the roads in their neighborhoods. Not gonna hold my breath on those ones.

[bzakharin]

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.

[AlexandriaVA]

Not to mention deliveries, taxis, services and contractors, as well as public services (I would hope that a fire truck could cut through!)

[kalvado]

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.

[empirestate]

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.

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.

[vdeane]

I enjoin anyone who sides with the homeowners here to never use a side street when driving around a major metro area, or really any area where they don't live.

The way I see it is that a road is either public or it isn't. If the citizens of the neigborhood want to purchase the road from the local government, then they might begin to have a case, but I highly doubt anyone would bother.

Besides, if a neighborhood road becomes too backed-up, then Waze users won't bother using it. It's self-correcting.

It's not a binary issue.  A few people on a side street for whatever reason is one thing 10k or more, on the other hand, is a different matter.  As I said, the people living there need to be able to get in and out of their driveways.  Making it impossible for them to get to/from their homes is an unreasonable infringement on their quality of life (one that I have experienced a couple times on a road I commute on (Forts Ferry for the curious), thanks to a water main break and the opening of a nearby Sonic (on the day it opened, the line extended onto the Northway SB lanes past the Twin Bridges (not exaggerating), and it took a month or two for the Sonic Effect to dissipate to reasonable levels, and a few more for all the effects to go away, most notably the opening of the Sonic driveway directly off of NY 7 WB)).  People who live in/near an area have rights too.  I would not consider "the road will get jammed because some stupid app developers are unable to prevent their code from routing thousands of people down a street that can't handle those traffic counts" to be a reasonable thing that one could predict.

Somewhat philosophical question.. I am getting home through one of very heavily used intersections, and pretty much the only alternative is a 10 mile detour.
I don't dare that intersection during rush hour (and thanks god, I can do that with my schedule), even reasonably late in commute cycle, 3-4 traffic cycle wait is not uncommon. 1 mile traffic queue and a wait that easily approaches 10 minutes, especially if a pedestrians initiates 36 second walk phase. Should I call that  " unreasonable infringement on their quality of life " and demand immediate action from NYSDOT? Should people waiting in daily backup on Twin Bridges do the same?

Sounds kinda like Maxwell/Old Niskayuna Rd (though that's a county signal).  It's a major reason why the Northway is impossible to bypass if it's congested (the configuration of exit 4 being the other one).  I hate it and don't know how it's allowed to back up like that.

And yeah, I'm paying a fair amount more in rent each month because I refuse to live north of the Mohawk River due to the Twin Bridges (though the merges approaching the bridge would cause the issues even if the bridges were widened).  I don't do long commute times.  I don't understand how we as a society put up with them.

[NE2]

-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

All of these can probably be proven false in a court of law. But how about the following?
*Looking for yard sales
*Thinking of moving into the area and checking it out
*Clinching local streets

[kalvado]

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!

I don't do long commute times.  I don't understand how we as a society put up with them.

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... 

[cl94]

I enjoin anyone who sides with the homeowners here to never use a side street when driving around a major metro area, or really any area where they don't live.

The way I see it is that a road is either public or it isn't. If the citizens of the neigborhood want to purchase the road from the local government, then they might begin to have a case, but I highly doubt anyone would bother.

Besides, if a neighborhood road becomes too backed-up, then Waze users won't bother using it. It's self-correcting.

It's not a binary issue.  A few people on a side street for whatever reason is one thing 10k or more, on the other hand, is a different matter.  As I said, the people living there need to be able to get in and out of their driveways.  Making it impossible for them to get to/from their homes is an unreasonable infringement on their quality of life (one that I have experienced a couple times on a road I commute on (Forts Ferry for the curious), thanks to a water main break and the opening of a nearby Sonic (on the day it opened, the line extended onto the Northway SB lanes past the Twin Bridges (not exaggerating), and it took a month or two for the Sonic Effect to dissipate to reasonable levels, and a few more for all the effects to go away, most notably the opening of the Sonic driveway directly off of NY 7 WB)).  People who live in/near an area have rights too.  I would not consider "the road will get jammed because some stupid app developers are unable to prevent their code from routing thousands of people down a street that can't handle those traffic counts" to be a reasonable thing that one could predict.

Somewhat philosophical question.. I am getting home through one of very heavily used intersections, and pretty much the only alternative is a 10 mile detour.
I don't dare that intersection during rush hour (and thanks god, I can do that with my schedule), even reasonably late in commute cycle, 3-4 traffic cycle wait is not uncommon. 1 mile traffic queue and a wait that easily approaches 10 minutes, especially if a pedestrians initiates 36 second walk phase. Should I call that  " unreasonable infringement on their quality of life " and demand immediate action from NYSDOT? Should people waiting in daily backup on Twin Bridges do the same?

Sounds kinda like Maxwell/Old Niskayuna Rd (though that's a county signal).  It's a major reason why the Northway is impossible to bypass if it's congested (the configuration of exit 4 being the other one).  I hate it and don't know how it's allowed to back up like that.

And yeah, I'm paying a fair amount more in rent each month because I refuse to live north of the Mohawk River due to the Twin Bridges (though the merges approaching the bridge would cause the issues even if the bridges were widened).  I don't do long commute times.  I don't understand how we as a society put up with them.

There's a reason why I've started cutting up to Exit 8A if I need to get to Saratoga/Queensbury in the afternoon. Just have to watch out for the cops that sit just north/west of the Waterford village line. US 9 isn't a horrible alternative if you're east of the Northway and going between 6 and 8A, either.

The merge would cause issues no matter what, but the issues would be less pronounced if there were 8 lanes south of Exit 9. The backup starts there and only gets worse. Of course, it needs to be 6 lanes within Exit 7, so a lane can be added and dropped in each direction to help with that merge. The NB merge causes the backups, but going from NY 7 WB to I-87 SB is damn near impossible in heavy traffic due to the short merge distance. And the lanes at Exit 1 need to be restriped to give NB I-87 2 continuous lanes, but that's another issue altogether.

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... 

Yep. More people means higher travel times for everyone.

[kalvado]

The merge would cause issues no matter what, but the issues would be less pronounced if there were 8 lanes south of Exit 9. The backup starts there and only gets worse. Of course, it needs to be 6 lanes within Exit 7, so a lane can be added and dropped in each direction to help with that merge. The NB merge causes the backups, but going from NY 7 WB to I-87 SB is damn near impossible in heavy traffic due to the short merge distance. And the lanes at Exit 1 need to be restriped to give NB I-87 2 continuous lanes, but that's another issue altogether.

This may be too local problem for this thread.. But if there was an option of getting extra lane or 2 for twin bridges, there would be much more room for discussion...

[cl94]

The merge would cause issues no matter what, but the issues would be less pronounced if there were 8 lanes south of Exit 9. The backup starts there and only gets worse. Of course, it needs to be 6 lanes within Exit 7, so a lane can be added and dropped in each direction to help with that merge. The NB merge causes the backups, but going from NY 7 WB to I-87 SB is damn near impossible in heavy traffic due to the short merge distance. And the lanes at Exit 1 need to be restriped to give NB I-87 2 continuous lanes, but that's another issue altogether.

This may be too local problem for this thread.. But if there was an option of getting extra lane or 2 for twin bridges, there would be much more room for discussion...

I only brought it up because it was previously mentioned and I fully agree.

Back to the original topic...