Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday April 30 2015, @08:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the shortest-distance-between-two-points dept.

An L.A. Councilman is attempting to blame the application Waze for neighborhood "cut-throughs", where people divert to side streets during traffic congestion.

In his view this is a new phenomenon that has never happened before, although it is widespread around the world and has been so for many years, certainly existing long before 'apps' became popular. The councilor is planning on using a data sharing agreement with Waze in order to strong-arm the application into becoming less useful, which will not solve the problem because people will just use other applications, and those with local knowledge will still know the quickest route from A to B.

The popularity of Waze is largely because it helps drivers avoid delays and to find alternative routes based on the the reports received from other drivers. Applying the measures that the councilor is hoping for will neuter the app completely, rendering it pointless. However, the councilor does make one good point - there are more pedestrian safety facilities (e.g. crossing points, barriers etc) on major routes and that the practice might lead to increased casualty rates in residential areas.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Disagree) by canopic jug on Thursday April 30 2015, @02:56PM

    by canopic jug (3949) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 30 2015, @02:56PM (#177094) Journal

    Perhaps my sarcasm detector is broken but adding lanes only makes the traffic jams worse [wired.com]. It's a known phenomenon that new or expanded roads don't ease congestion [bicycleuniverse.info]. What is needed there is to get mass transit to get the cars off the road. Or reduce the number of people. Move to where the water is.

    And the fish had plenty of water before clever people decided to grow rice and alfalfa in the desert. Yes, the U.S. has deserts and it's just as stupid to live in them [youtube.com] as other country's deserts. Food should be grown where the water is. With the current climate, much of what is grown in California ought to be moved to Georgia or thereabouts.

    --
    Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Disagree=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:18PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:18PM (#177106)

    With the current climate, much of what is grown in California ought to be moved to Georgia or thereabouts.

    When you think about it, California is approximately the worst possible place for water-intensive agriculture. Especially compared with, say, Oregon or Lousiana or Ohio, all of which are much wetter. The attitude seems to be along the lines of "All the banks said I was daft to build a farm in a desert, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em!"

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:36PM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:36PM (#177154)

      Sadly there is no swamp for their farm to sink in to.

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:59PM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Thursday April 30 2015, @03:59PM (#177129) Journal

    With this sort of logic no highways, rails, or subways should be built because people will use them. Madness. All that "induced demand" is traffic that is already trying alternate routes because the ones we paid for aren't working!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 30 2015, @04:08PM (#177136)

    I read that article and it does put up a reasonable argument. The argument is that we're compelled to pay for roads so why not fully utilize them when it better suits us since I'm paying for them anyways and my additional cost of using what I already paid for is small compared to my entire cost of building the roads. For instance if I can get a better job further away with higher pay and my transportation costs in addition to what I'm compelled to pay through taxes are $10 a month but I can make $30 a month more (just an example) my net benefit is $20 a month. However, what the government compelled me to pay for those roads is an additional $30 a month making my total cost for building the roads and using them an additional $40 a month. $40 - $30 = $10 that I'm out if you factor in what I pay for those roads as a taxpayer into the equation. If I get to choose not to pay for those roads if I don't use them and getting a slightly lower paying local job instead I would choose that because my net income would still be greater.

    Perhaps this is a decent argument for toll roads but if we are to have toll roads the proceeds should be government collected to be distributed back into the general fund. If a business far away wants you bad enough ensure that they pay for your transportation as well, heck, they can even negotiate deals with government over bulk payment plans for larger quantities of employees.