
'Cut-through' traffic caused by Waze app must stop, L.A. councilman says - prostoalex
http://mynewsla.com/government/2015/04/28/cut-through-traffic-caused-by-waze-app-must-stop-l-a-councilman-says/?google_editors_picks=true
======
ljd
I've lived in Los Angeles for the last 5 years and I can tell you that Waze
really uses neighborhood routes in the hills, which coincides with the most
affluent residents in LA.

Unfortunatelly, Los Angeles is built with 3-4 choke points to get from the
reasonably priced suburbs in San Fernando Valley to the companies that pay for
$100k+ positions on the west side and mid-wilshire.

Waze helps alleviate that traffic and I not surprised that a politician here
in LA is so out of touch that he would recommend shutting down a tool most
people use to get to work so that the wealthy can have less traffic noise
outside their house at 8am.

Streets are public domain, and until I'm relieved of my road tax liabilities I
intend on using any one I choose.

~~~
leephillips
Until they put up signs forbidding rush hour traffic for non-residents of the
street. At least, that's what they do around here (DC area).

~~~
berns
And how is it enforced? Do they ask "where are you going"? Can you answer
"none of your business"? I never lived in the US but I refuse to abandon my
mental image of the free country I always thought it was.

~~~
tptacek
They pull you over, and if you don't live in the immediate vicinity, you get a
ticket. It's happened to me several times in Oak Park, and I live there!

You could say "none of your business". You'll get the ticket, and, if its
really unjustified, you can go fight it in traffic court.

~~~
kinghajj
"Sorry officer, I got lost and took a wrong turn. I'll make my way back to the
main street."

~~~
mikeash
Getting lost doesn't remove your ability to read signs that tell you not to
enter a particular street.

~~~
berns
But what do the signs say? I'm really curious. Can you visit a friend? Do the
police escort you to your friends house?

~~~
mikeash
"I'm going to a friend's house. He is located at $ADDRESS."

If you're proposing this as a way to avoid a justified ticket by lying to the
police, all I'll say is, good luck with that.

------
bkeroack
This is an example of the NIMBYism that's unfortunately common here. The homes
in the areas with the worst traffic (ie, Westside) are very expensive
(>$1million) and are also usually in hilly areas with twisty, narrow streets.
While I can't blame the residents for hating the extra traffic, OTOH at peak
times of day the main thoroughfares are almost literally nonfunctional due to
congestion. I drove for three hours yesterday morning and went a total of
maybe 8-10 miles--and that was avoiding the freeways and using 'secret'
backroad shortcuts.

We really need to get serious about stopping subsidies for freeways and other
outdated modes of transporation, and instead fund efficient, modern mass
transit. Roads designed for single passenger cars are the steam engines of the
21st century.

~~~
dudifordMann
This may very well be reflective of my ignorance of that area, but would a
bicycle not suffice for an 8 to 10 mile trip? If an average speed of a bicycle
is say 10mph, then you've already cut your time by two hours!

Of course.. I believe most American cities and roadways are not well designed
for commuter cyclists. Perhaps we need a serious look into the bike highways
of Copenhagen.

~~~
marssaxman
In California? it'd work for half the year; the other half, you'd die of
heatstroke.

~~~
dudifordMann
Interesting point. I'm on the west coast, and our summers tend to be much
hotter, and winters much colder. So I suppose, not only bike friendly roads
are needed, but also a whole biking culture would need to be established to
allow employees to change into work clothing from weather sensitive bike
gear... hmmm, complexities...

~~~
marssaxman
I may have been engaging in some mild hyperbole there, but one big reason I
got the hell out of Sacramento and now live up north in blissfully cool,
shady, overcast Seattle was that I couldn't stand the 100F-plus summers. It's
hard enough just enduring that kind of heat; getting out in the sun and
sweating on your way to/from work is just... not something I would ever do.
But maybe LA is not as bad as the Central Valley, I don't know.

------
acadien
Just once it would be great to read a headline like:

"Traffic congestion spurs realization that enhanced public transit is sorely
needed in high density population zones"

instead of:

"City council continues to make short sighted decisions that don't help
anyone"

------
rmxt
"No thru traffic" signs have been a part of life for a long time, long before
Waze came around, and that's the simplest answer to the issue for these
residents. [1] Yes, as other posters have pointed out, this is an instance of
technology butting up against entrenched interests and behaviors: the
shortcuts formerly only known by a few, are now available to anybody with a
smartphone; rich residents get mad at the increased traffic, and political
action happens quicker when rich people are involved. [2,3]

Whether or not this is an example of the rich getting their way more quickly
than the average person, I think that the point about residential areas seeing
increased through traffic is an important one. No one, whether rich or poor,
wants to live on a heavily trafficked street. (I believe that it is possible
to create environments that contain both successful transportation
infrastructure and livable streets for _all_ people.) The answer, however,
isn't to shut these roads off to thru traffic (an exercise in futility), but
rather to create better routes for people to get to work. Whether these routes
are better mass transit options, better new roads, or improvements to existing
roads, they will all, unfortunately, be uphill battles against NIMBYers.
Hopefully LA, and the US in general, can eventually come around from the car-
dominated perception of the urban environment.

[1]
[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236446](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=236446)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_City_Council_Distr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_City_Council_District_2)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley#Property_v...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley#Property_values)

~~~
michael_h
As my Dad says, "'Thru' is not a word I recognize. Let's cut through here."

------
spacemanmatt
Blaming Waze is blaming information, because that's all Waze can provide. I'm
sure it plays well with his constituency, though.

~~~
scelerat
Waze is more than information. It provides directions to drivers, with the
promise of speeding a commute. It appeals directly to people in a hurry, and
it directs them through residential neighborhoods not designed for through
traffic.

A reasonable hypothesis would be that greater Waze use would correlate to
higher numbers of accidents in residential neighborhoods.

~~~
RickHull
> Waze is more than information.

Nope. In this respect (transportation routes), it is quite literally and
merely information. It does not make promises.

~~~
scelerat
Waze has synthesized voice instructions to "turn left at Oak Glen Circle." I
call that "direction." You call it "information." Potayto, Potahto?

Also, "promise," meaning indicative of potential.

~~~
spacemanmatt
All are functions of the information. Take away the information, and all those
things go with it.

------
chollida1
This is the same problem that technology always brings.

The "you could do it before but required alot of work and now the technology
makes it so anyone can do it" problem.

Google made this famous by allowing anyone to learn more than people wanted
other to know about themselves.

The information was all there before google but google made it easy for anyone
to collect with little effort.

To the home owners point, I do find myself doing this alot with waze in
Toronto. Instead of taking Gardener or Front Street, waze sends me through the
CNE grounds on streets that i didn't even now existed. I could have probably
done this before waze but the technology made it easy for anyone to do.

It seems like the solution is the do what they've always done, improve core
infrastructure arteries and put up speed bumps, slower speed limits and more
stop signs to help deter people from moving through residential
neighbourhoods.

~~~
mauricemir
speed bumps sound ok until:

A some one looses a $3k exhaust system on a sports car to them B Someone dies
because of slow ambulance response - Emergency vehicle crews hate speed bumps

~~~
kinghajj
The speed bumps around my old neighborhood have a dip in the median exactly so
that ambulances can avoid the bump completely. I was told that it's also a
safety concern, as sudden shocks when carrying, say, someone with a spinal
injury could actually be life-threatening. (Un)fortunately, it's also
perfectly possible for ordinary cars to use the dip, too, and thus not have to
slow down really at all.

------
scelerat
Part of me is with this councilmember: cities put effort into planning and
zoning for the benefits of all citizens, not just those who are driving
automobiles.

Another part of me says, traffic has gotten bad because transportation
infrastructure is bad, and a big chunk of that is this councilmember's job. So
if he's complaining about the traffic, he also ought to be working on some
solutions. More convenient public transportation, better bikeways, etc.

I've had this same thought using Waze to avoid afternoon traffic in Silicon
Valley when it took me through residential neighborhoods with kids playing in
the streets and past schools.. Overall, if you're regularly diverting your
commute from designated thoroughfares through residential neighborhoods,
wealthy or not, I'm gonna call you a self-absorbed jerk.

~~~
mikeash
What's a "designated thoroughfare"? I'm not sure I've seen such a beast.

In my opinion, what's self-absorbed is buying a house on a public road that
can be used as part of a longer trip, and then getting upset when people
actually use it. If you don't want outsiders driving through your
neighborhood, move some place which is off the beaten path, or where you can
put up gates or something. This will be less convenient for you, but that's
the tradeoff that comes from making things less convenient for others.

~~~
scelerat
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arterial_road](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arterial_road)

------
fjabre
I can just open up a google map and do it manually. I do that now. Waze just
makes it easier.

If you don't want traffic congestion you might consider not living in Los
Angeles.

~~~
SEJeff
Or perhaps the city council should fix the actual underlying problem... That
their road systems can't really cope with the amount of traffic they have
currently.

~~~
malvim
Or that their cities can't really cope with the amount of people they
currently have.

~~~
iwwr
Or that cities need to get more dense and friendlier toward pedestrians and
bikes.

~~~
jusben1369
It's simply a personal preference for dense cities vs being an absolute truth.

~~~
mikeash
Denser cities are demonstrably better off and more efficient.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Denser cities are demonstrably better off and more efficient.

"Better off" is a matter of subjective value, and the fact that lots of people
prefer _not_ to live in denser cities demonstrates that the measures by which
denser cities are "better off" do not represent universally-shared values.

~~~
mikeash
There's a lot of subjectivity, but it can be measured in an approximate but
decent manner by using money. People in denser cities have more money on
average. Property values in denser cities are much higher, which indicates
that people prefer to live there than elsewhere, on average.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Property values in denser cities are much higher, which indicates that
> people prefer to live there than elsewhere

No, it doesn't, because:

(1) property is not used exclusively for living space, and (2) even leaving
aside #1, you'd expect higher residential property values in one kind of area
than another if the supply of residential space in the first kind of area was
lower compared to the number of people that prefer that space, no matter what
the overall aggregate of preferences was between the two kinds of space, so
"there is less space in dense cities compared to the number of people who
prefer them than there is outside of dense cities compared to people who
prefer living there" would be a better conclusion from that premise than
"people generally prefer to live in dense cities", even before considering (3)
you ignore the fact that dense cities tend to occur in places that are
desirable for reasons that exist prior to the density, and that density is an
_effect_ , not the _cause_ of the desirability.

~~~
mikeash
In dense cities, a lot of property is used for living space (that's what makes
them dense) and supply is high (likewise, that's what makes them dense).

As for cause and effect, I'm not ignoring anything. Cause and effect simply
doesn't matter here. Are cities dense because they're where people want to
live, or do people want to live there because they're dense? It doesn't
matter; in the end, people prefer to live there. If people want to live there
because it's dense, then it's obvious that people like density. If it's dense
because people want to live there, then that means more people get to live in
a desirable place, and the fact that people try to go there means that it's
worth the extra cost. Either way: density is better.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Cause and effect simply doesn't matter here. Are cities dense because
> they're where people want to live, or do people want to live there because
> they're dense? It doesn't matter; in the end, people prefer to live there.

It matters quite a bit when the issue of desirability of dense cities was
raised as support for the claim uphtread that "cities need to get more dense";
if desirability is a cause of density rather than its effect, the desirability
of existing dense cities does not support the claim that not-currently-dense
cities need to get more dense.

------
jamra
So the statement is to stop cut through traffic in stead of fixing the broken
LA system.

How about we offer acceptable public transportation alternatives such as a
proper metro and more frequent busses?

------
sjg007
Lol.. Welcome to Los Angeles. Traffic is and has always been bad and cut
throughs always have happened. This is not new or news.

~~~
bgun
Contributing to a discussion about how to ameliorate the situation would be
more welcome than "that's just how it is" dismissal.

~~~
Semiapies
Not really. All we have is a bunch of commenters, the most vocal from outside
the area, hand-waving and saying officials should _just fix the problem_.
Realities of settlement, infrastructure, and politics stand against just
waving a magic wand, though.

Also, just saying "transit" is saying absolutely nothing without demonstrating
that one knows the difference between the layouts of NYC and Greater LA.

~~~
jamra
You're right. I don't think the non Los Angeleans really understand the layout
of LA. It's not a city like NY is a city.

Politics are stopping us from developing better public transportation options.
Blaming people for trying to stay out of 2 hour traffic is not the right
approach.

------
jefurii
This would be less of a problem if companies didn't all feel they had to be
located in Santa Monica and West LA. Maybe the head office absolutely has to
be on the Westside because of the cool address, but what about satellite
offices around the city, closer to where people live?

Or better yet, just evolve the corporate culture and embrace working remote.

~~~
Semiapies
Or maybe looking outside of LA and SF entirely.

------
cmsmith
I'll be the first to say here that if this effect is actually supported by
data, and not just anecdotes, then the councilman has a good point. It's rude
and dangerous to cut through residential neighborhoods to save one or two
minutes off of your car trip, and mapping apps shouldn't be so quick to direct
you to do so.

Pedestrians and cyclists have already lost access to major roads (see
invention of jaywalking, etc), but it was OK since we could still take walks
in our neighborhood. If every road is open to its full traffic capacity, the
only safe place to be is in a car.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Its rude and dangerous to cut through residential neighborhoods to save one
> or two minutes off of your car trip, and mapping apps shouldn't be so quick
> to direct you to do so.

No, its not rude to use public roads to get between points connected by those
roads, nor is it dangerous provided you are driving in a safe manner (and, if
you are driving in an unsafe manner, that's a problem no matter _why_ you are
on those roads -- just as much if you are doing it to get to or from your home
that is on the road as if you are using it to get between two points that the
road happens to connect.)

~~~
cmsmith
>just as much if you are doing it to get to or from your home that is on the
road as if you are using it to get between two points that the road happens to
connect

This is exactly the point and where the problem lies.

If I live on the road, and am one minute from home, and know that my
neighbor's kid likes to ride his bike there - then I'm going to be very
careful while driving down it.

If I'm still 30 minutes from home, and using the road to get from one 50mph
main road to a different 50mph main road, I'm going to be in a hurry and not
respect the residential speed limit as much.

It's human nature, and we can fight it by [1] having police speed traps in
every neighborhood (expensive), [2] having speed bumps everywhere (annoying),
or [3] adjusting the dials on Waze's optimization function.

~~~
mikeash
There are more options than your three, such as [4] fix the road system so
that routes through residential neighborhoods stop being the fastest.

You seem to present [3] as being the obvious and easy choice, but it's the
only one that involves suppressing information i.e. censorship. That's a moral
problem as well as a practical one: Waze provides a useful service, and if you
shut it down or neuter it, you'll just get a dozen imitators popping up to
take its place. (Never mind that a ton of apps besides Waze already provide
the same sort of info.)

------
jamespitts
I hope that this problem encourages LA's more elite residents to strongly
support a subway underneath the 405. Poorer residents in the flats have long
suffered this effect adjacent to freeways.

But whatever the class of residents affected is, to mis-use streets intended
for local neighborhood activity is terrible behavior.

Due to where things are headed technologically, it is only a matter of time
before the city simply automatically charges drivers fines for driving
inappropriate routes.

~~~
jamra
Why stop there? We have enough money in LA to build a metro on or around the
101 and 405. We don't need five lanes if we reduce the cars on the road.

------
dragonwriter
Instead of trying to have Waze direct people into less efficient routes,
shouldn't the L.A. city council use the data provided about how roads are
being used to address the fact that the "major roads" that are intended to be
the efficient routes between distant locations are, in fact, _not doing their
jobs_.

------
eli
Why not just put up "No Through Traffic" or "Local Traffic Only" signs as many
other cities do?

~~~
dragonwriter
Or, adopt the more common (and also pre-GPS) solution of just designing
residential neighborhoods (or refitting existing roads with strategically
placed auto-traffic barriers) so that they aren't _usable_ for cut-through
auto traffic, but still perfectly usable for ingress/egress and for through
traffic by pedestrians/bicycles.

Complaining that people are using public roads that connect their origin with
their destination to travel from that origin to that destination is, well,
bizarre.

~~~
eli
Probably the right answer, but that sounds like multiple orders of magnitude
more difficult than putting up some signs and/or posting a cop to write some
tickets. Also, I assume the people who live in those neighborhoods would want
still want their houses easily reachable by car.

