Waze and Other Traffic Dodging Apps Prompt Cities To Game the Algorithms (usatoday.com)

KindMind writes: USA today reports that Waze and others are causing traffic planners to try to figure out how to gain control back. From the article: "While traffic savvy GPS apps like Waze and Google Maps have provided users a way to get around traffic, it has caused massive headaches for city planners. With highways frequently congested, navigation apps like Google Maps and Waze started telling drivers to hop off the freeway at Fremont's Mission Boulevard, cut through residential streets and then hop back on the highway where things were clearer -- much to the distress of the people who lived there. 'The commuters didn't live or work in Fremont and didn't care about our residential neighborhoods,' said Noe Veloso, Fremont's principal transportation engineer. Fremont instituted commute-hour turn restrictions on the most heavily used residential cut-through routes. The city also partnered with Waze through its Connected Citizens Program in order to share data and information, such as the turn restrictions, so that the app takes them into account. The result has been effective, but Veloso is worried the changes may simply reroute commuters into other neighborhoods."

Comments

I'm hungry

[Anonymous Coward]

God forbid that someone gets off a freeway and discovers a local establishment while passing through.

Re:I'm hungry

[DerekLyons]

God forbid that someone gets off a freeway and discovers a local establishment while passing through.

Having owned a business along such a commuter route... All I can say is ROTFLMAO. You have no idea what you're talking about.

All those commuters care about is getting the hell out of Dodge and back onto the freeway and getting home. They're not even looking at the local businesses.

Re:I'm hungry

[meerling]

So instead people sit in a traffic jam, and make it worse, trapping more people, and still the people that are close enough to an exit will still end up taking it to drive through residential areas, and tend to do so for a longer distance both because the traffic is backed up further, and often they don't know just when it's cleared up and get on after that point... Seems to me the apps are reducing the problems for everyone while some bozo in the local government is annoyed that traffic is rerouting past his damaged system.

Re:I'm hungry

[Anonymous Coward]

But they aren't trying to keep the routes from commercial districts. They are trying to keep people from using residential districts as the throughway. You won't find much in the way of businesses in a residential zone but you are much more likely to find kids and pets in the road.

Re:I'm hungry

[AmiMoJo]

Seems to me the apps are reducing the problems for everyone

Except the people living in the rat runs. Pollution goes up, health deteriorates and costs increase. Accidents increase, insurance goes up. Property prices decrease, they can't use the street for other things any more.

There is a reason that major roads are kept separate from where people live.

Time To Invest In Infrastructure

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean we're just supposed to sit in gridlock instead? Our highways have been an inadequate crumbling mess for decades. The proper response here is to fix them, not gripe that there's an inadequate workaround.

Re:Time To Invest In Infrastructure

[xevioso]

By "fixing" do you mean widen? Which usually actually ADDS to congestion on many cases?

Re:Time To Invest In Infrastructure

[DontBeAMoran]

Another point of view would be that highways are more than adequate for decades, it's selfish people who don't use mass transit and idiots living one hour away from work that are the problem.

Re:Time To Invest In Infrastructure

[xevioso]

Or you can do what most major cities around the world do, which is fund mass transit at extremely high levels, to encourage people to not drive.

The Bay Area has some unique geographical features that make the sort of public transit that works extremely well in other places more difficult here; that said, it's still pretty good.

Re:Time To Invest In Infrastructure

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

it's selfish people who don't use mass transit and idiots living one hour away from work that are the problem.

Yes, those inconsiderate bastards that can't find a job that's only 5 minutes away from where they live! Who do they think they are??

Newsflash, dumbfuck: EVERYONE would love to live close to where their job is, but it doesn't always work out that way.

Shockingly, some people change jobs once in a while, and even more shockingly, some people can't afford to move or find it impractical to do so.

Should I move away from the home I've lived in for 20+ years just to be a little closer to wherever it is I work? No fucking way.

Or politicians can go back to basic services

[LeftCoastThinker]

Or, you know, politicians could spend the gas tax funds to improve the freeways and stop pissing them away on mass transit buses that have a 15% utilization rate...

Re:Or politicians can go back to basic services

[johanw]

Mass transport is going from where you aren't to where you don't need to be.

Re:Or politicians can go back to basic services

[markdavis]

That's funny. Two local buses and an express bus gets me from my front door at 6AM to the front door of my job 30 miles away at 7AM. Best commute I ever had in 30 years of taking public transit.

And you probably represent a small fraction of a small percent. In many areas of the county, the mass transit simply doesn't work well because everyone is going everywhere and there are not enough routes or connections. Nobody is going to trade crawling in a traffic jam for an hour (in their own car) to standing outside multiple times in the rain, jumping from one bus to another, dealing with smelly and loud people for 1.5 hours.

Re:Or politicians can go back to basic services

[serviscope_minor]

So.. You are telling me that there are no special bus lanes that could otherwise be carrying cars?

Some places yes. But the congestion happens at junctions mostly. The bus lane allows the bus to skip the traffic queues at the junctions. I don't see how it would increase the throughput at the junction however, since the junction itself is what causes the congestion.

That the buses don't have very high fuel (and therefore pollution) footprints

Not per passenger mile, they don't. But are you complaining about fuel economy or congestion? They're different problems (though often with the same solutions because of physics).

and that they don't cost the city huge amounts in subsidies

The roads cost a huge amount too. If the bus subsidy reduces the congestion more effectively than the equivalent amount of money spent on roads, then you should be in favour of it.

I wonder what color the sky is in your world.

Mostly grey, but I live in a part of the world where buses are heavily used and the idea of operating without public transport is so patently absurd that all but the most reality-denying feverent of wingnuts are in favour of it.

Re:Or politicians can go back to basic services

[AmiMoJo]

Is that a problem with public transport in general or just your poor implementation of it?

In Tokyo you can get everywhere on public transport, which runs every few minutes. It's often faster than driving. They build the tracks and over and under, even though it costs more, because they need them and 50 year ROI is fine.

the mass transit simply doesn't work well because everyone is going everywhere and there are not enough routes or connections

Personal transport simply doesn't work because everyone is going to the same place and there are is not enough capacity on the main trunk roads.

Part of fixing this requires designing your cities so that it is possible to walk or cycle around them, so that when you get off the train or bus it's no problem to walk a short way to your destination.

Public roads?

[0100010001010011]

Are the roads paid for by public taxes? They're public roads. I used to do this all the time with the old paper maps. Looks like a road stoppage? Find a parallel city or state road. Follow the speed limits and other rules of the road and you're legally allowed to drive on them.

Want a gated community with private roads? Pay to live in one.

Re:Public roads?

[serviscope_minor]

That's a bad attitude frankly. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea. In fact more or less everything has been legal at some point, which is why there are now so many laws. Because if there's no law against it, then some idiot will do it, no matter how ill conceived.

Yes, it's legal to do that. Yes people have always skipped busy areas with local knowledge. However large numbers of people going down a rat run (see there's even a phrase for it now) makes life miserable for those on the rat run. It's the sort of thing that prompts local authorities to put in traffic restrictions, entirely reasonably, because residential streets are designed for access, not throughput. And if they get misused, then that's bad.

It's now getting worse because of the increased convenience.

Anyway it's a classic case of "this is why we can't have nice things". People will abuse the residential roads and eventually the authorities will intervene. Then those abusers will whine and the locals will grumble a bit about the restrictions, but not that much because of the reduced traffic on unsuitable roads.

Re:Public roads?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Are the roads paid for by public taxes? They're public roads.

Well, for one, commuters frequently are cutting through roads which aren't in their own community. So, unless it's a state road or something, they may not be paying taxes for these roads.

Second, neighborhoods are often planned and zoned based on assumed traffic patterns. For example, they may choose to put a school or tight residential areas farther away from heavy traffic commuter highways -- for safety reasons. If you suddenly start routing rush-hour traffic through there, it can create hazards with pedestrians, driveways, kids playing, etc.

The problem isn't new, though -- and many towns and cities even have policies on the books to deal with it. The difference is that in years past traffic patterns would change over years or decades, whereas now they can be altered quite suddenly with a map app's algorithm. Long before stuff like Waze, the city I used to live in had a series of progressive restrictions it would make on streets that exceeded their designed traffic load for the zoning, etc.

They'd put in more one-way streets to make it more difficult to navigate the area without a lot of turns, then introduce things like raised crossings to slow people down (and help point out places where pedestrians might be very common), eventually they'd covert some streets to cul-de-sacs, and in a worst case scenario might even put a mid-block barrier to stop traffic going through entirely.

These weren't actions undertaken by citizens -- this was official stuff in the municipal code of the city, authorized by the city's governing council, elected by the city's taxpayers who paid for the city's road maintenance. If you're a commuter who doesn't like those policies... drive on somebody else's "public roads."

Re:Public roads?

[cipher1024]

Sounds great. Why don't the local residents do that? Why should they not be burdened by the problem just as much as the drivers are? Why the double standard?

So your solution is to cause a problem for someone else. Nice.

The residents are deliberately ruining a public resource for everyone.

Back in the long-long-ago, people had some courtesy and respect for other people. Your attitude is exactly why we can't have nice things anymore. Generally, if you don't have any reason to be in a residential area, you should stay out of it. That's just common courtesy. Just because it's not illegal to drive on the road, doesn't mean it's not a douche move to cut through someone else's neighborhood. Those people pay for the road in front of their house through property taxes and assessments, so you should show some respect by not wearing the road out prematurely because it was not designed nor built to support freeway levels of use. "If it's legal, it's OK" is a shitty mentality. I'd rather not live in a society where they have to try and legislate good manners.

Re:Public roads?

[serviscope_minor]

Not "entirely reasonably", not reasonably at all. What causes authorities to put in restrictions is the endless complaints of an entitled few, not concern over improper use.

No you're the entitled one thinking you have the right to use residential roads for commuting. Typical of car users, it's all "mine mine mine". No mater if you make roads not designed or use more dangerous, and subject people to large amounts of noise pollution.

BS. All roads are designed for "throughput", some for higher throughput that others.

Utter tosh. Most residential roads are designed for access, not throughput. Some are cul de sacs which have a net throughput of precisely zero.

No road, however, is optimized for throughput since it's speed limit is set intentionally too low, at least in the US.

Well, this simply proves that whiny, entitled drivers are their own worse enemies. Increasing the speed limit decreases throughput since braking distance increases with the square of speed. That's why very busy motorways have variable speed limits. When congestion happens, they bump the speed limit progressively down from 70 to 40, since the throughput is much higher at 40 than at 70.

You clearly don't know anything about traffic planning, and you believe you have a moral right to do something if it's legal, no matter how large the negative impact on others. So, the local council will put in restrictions removing your legal right to use the roads in the way you think is OK.

It's very telling that you put your right to get somewhere a bit faster well above the rights of a large number of people to live on a safer road without large amounts of noise pollution.

The way to "reduce traffic on unsuitable roads" is to fix the roads which are intended to handle that traffic. No discussion of that though! Who cares just so long as the residents get the roads reserved for their use only.

Yep, it's clear you don't know the first thing about traffic. You're just like a toddler whining "mine! mine! mine!".

Re:Public roads?

[serviscope_minor]

If you want to limit the use of those streets in that way, then they should be private roads, paid for by only the residents of that street.

If they want to limit the use of streets then they should make them private. That means I can dig up the freeway and put a building there, because it's public land so I can use it how I want, right? No, of course not. You don't have a right to use public land in absolutely any way you want.

Re:Public roads?

[serviscope_minor]

It's not the drivers' fault that there is insufficient highway capacity. What are they supposed to, just suck it up?

Yep. Or you know, live somewhere which doesn't require huge commutes. So that means probably living in a smaller house, but that's basically trading your lifestyle against externalities imposed on other people.

Traffic congestion is a problem which needs to be fixed. A small percentage increase (the residential roads don't have much capacity) which makes a huge number of people miserable is a poor solution.

"It's a feature, not a bug" - seriously

[davidwr]

but Veloso is worried the changes may simply reroute commuters into other neighborhoods.

Rerouting traffic to the best available route is a feature, not a bug. Seriously, it's a feature. Don't mess with it.

If you really don't want people cutting through neighborhoods during rush hour, then put up temporary traffic-flow restrictions in ALL neighborhoods during those hours and make sure Waze, Google, etc. know about them.

Re:"It's a feature, not a bug" - seriously

[AthanasiusKircher]

But is it legal for a city to restrict public roads like that? I think there would be some legal road blocks with that concept(pun intended).

Yes, it is legal for a city to do such things, particularly in the name of public safety. Residential areas are frequently zoned, parcelled, and otherwise designed with an expected traffic volume. Increase that volume significantly with a bunch of frantic rush-hour drivers, and suddenly your school is no longer located on a "safe" street, and hazards are created by pedestrians, frequent driveways, kids playing, etc.

Controlling traffic on streets to try to keep it to its designed volume for safety reasons is no different from prohibiting you from parking near an intersection or next to a fire hydrant or whatever on a "public road," also in the name of safety.

Bandaid

[Thelasko]

This is a bandaid on the much deeper problem. Inadequate highway infrastructure. Fix the root cause, not the symptom.

Re:Bandaid

[markdavis]

>"The root problem is too many cars, not overpopulation."

No, it is pretty much overpopulation. I moved to this area 30 years ago and traffic was X. Now it is about 2X and so is the population. Car ownership rates hasn't changed all that much in 30 years. Most adults own a car and use it regularly.

Learn the Lesson of Water

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: How does water get where it's going?

A: Any way it has to.

Commuters and drivers are like water. Put up a barrier and the "water" will adapt, and rather faster than a creaky bureaucracy can keep up.

It's not the highway infrastructure

[wickerprints]

The real root of the problem is that people are either unwilling or unable to live within a short distance to their workplace. Many large cities were not designed to handle the volume of commuters that we have had for at least 20 years. People live in the suburbs (for a variety of reasons; some due to economics, others due to a desire to live in areas with lower population density), and commute to the city centers to work. This was okay when suburban sprawl was not as extreme as it is now. In the Bay Area, people can't afford to live close to work due to the insane real estate market. And they don't want to live in shoebox apartments, either.

The problem can only be solved by reducing the need for people to commute. There are a lot of ways to do this:

1. Encourage employees to work remotely where possible.
2. Decrease the cost of living in the city center or areas close to work.
3. Provide financial incentives for employees to live near their job site.
4. Allow more flexible working hours so that traffic volume can be distributed over a longer period of time.
5. Self-driving cars have the potential to reduce accidents and increase traffic flow efficiency.

Notice I did not include public transit. Public transit is only good for people who already live sufficiently close or do not need the flexibility of traveling by car. In Los Angeles, public transit is a complete joke. To commute from a suburb to downtown can take over 90 minutes, whereas driving by car--even in traffic--is at least 30 minutes faster, simply because train frequencies and network densities are too low. Sure, it's great if you only need to travel two or three stations and the trains run every five minutes...but for the vast majority of commuters this is not realistic. Commuters want and need to drive cars.

Re:It's not the highway infrastructure

[jeff4747]

In Los Angeles, public transit is a complete joke.

>90% of the buildings in the Los Angeles area are 3 stories or less.

The problem is not public transit in and of itself. The problem is zoning restrictions that prevent the density required for effective public transit.

Bus downtime; housing cost gradient

[tepples]

it's selfish people who don't use mass transit

If you live in a city that doesn't run its buses from 8:45 PM to 5:45 AM (source), and you're given hours at night, you need a car in order not to have to spend the majority of your paycheck on a taxi or lose your job. If you live in a city that doesn't run its buses on Sundays, and you're given hours on Sunday, you need a car in order not to have to spend the majority of your paycheck on a taxi or lose your job.

and idiots living one hour away from work that are the problem.

A lot of jobs don't pay enough to rent a place to live closer to work. How are people "idiots" for taking advantage of a sharp gradient in annual housing costs? Perhaps the real "idiots" serve on the city's zoning board that created this situation.

Re:Bus downtime; housing cost gradient

[bickerdyke]

it's selfish people who don't use mass transit

If you live in a city that doesn't run its buses from 8:45 PM to 5:45 AM (source), and you're given hours at night, you need a car in order not to have to spend the majority of your paycheck on a taxi or lose your job. If you live in a city that doesn't run its buses on Sundays, and you're given hours on Sunday, you need a car in order not to have to spend the majority of your paycheck on a taxi or lose your job.

And if you're paying for a car anway, you don't want to pay the same amount again for a month pass, even if your usual hours are not at night or on sunday.

Wait

[Dunbal]

So town planners are mad that people avoid sitting in traffic and want to find a way to force people to sit in traffic? I didn't realize that generating traffic jams was the actual goal of the transportation people.