7 ms·
Transport for London Tech Lead here. In London, we have been collaborating with google waze - we provide them with information at the local level. Streets that
by simplesleeper 7y ago
Transport for London Tech Lead here.
In London, we have been collaborating with google waze - we provide them with information at the local level. Streets that waze should not use for route finding (e.g. roads with schools) can be blocked for use by Waze. Both local councils and TfL can provide this data.
The main difference between Waze and Google Maps is that Waze uses real time traffic data. There are multiple map providers that do this in London. There is a plan to provide different data to different TfL data consumers in the future to try and get map providers to seperate traffic across roads (at the cost of surrendering absolute truth).
London is also host to discussions of taxing roads - this is unsurprising when the roads are mostly paid for by the cost of the London Underground (LU makes the majority of public transport money, but 80% of revenue goes into road, traffic and bus management). The London Assembly (who supposedly keep the London mayor accountable) have written a paper "London Stalling" to suggest road taxing related to mileage across London. This, they no doubt expect, will cut down the traffic. However, from my understanding of embellished models of Braess' paradox, this will only result in similar traffic (on maybe slightly different roads) with an optimum equilibrium between how good a route is and what the cost of it is - meaning people may just take longer to commute and pay more tax.
- L_226 7y ago> The main difference between Waze and Google Maps is that Waze uses real time traffic data. Do you mean that Waze uses real time data provided by 3rd parties? Because I have always had the understanding that Gmaps uses location and telemetry data from (the Google maps) mobile apps to determine traffic conditions in near real time.
- simplesleeper 7y agoI don't know what happens under their hood, but I know for sure they source some data from third parties. Makes sense to, considering TfL provides a lot of data - e.g. live bus times etc
- roelschroeven 7y agoWaze uses, at the very least, data from people who use Waze. But I suppose Waze also uses the location data Google gets from Android phones. And vice-versa.
- masklinn 7y agoI expect what they mean is Waze uses real-time traffic data for routing. Google Maps displays traffic conditions but I don't remember that impacting the routing it gives you. Last time I used it, it just marked road sections as high-traffic but didn't truly re-route around on the fly.
- neka 7y agoWaze doesn't seem to allow you to specify whether you're a trade vehicle or not so it keeps routing trade vehicles into Regents (and the other Royal) Park which they are prohibited from and liable to be fined.
- simplesleeper 7y agoAgreed - I've had similar issues when renting a big van - I was directed through streets where I didn't comply with width restrictions
- kenned3 7y agoThere are GPS tools specifically for trucks, which are aware of width and height restrictions... try one of those next time.
- oh_sigh 7y agoDid you ever tell Google maps that you were in a big fan? Otherwise, how would it know?
- michaelt 7y agoGoogle Maps doesn't have anywhere to tell it you're driving a large vehicle. Knowing about and respecting size and weight restrictions is usually a feature on 'professional' sat nav units [1]. Serious delivery companies of course pay the premium to get this feature - but occasional van drivers don't. [1] https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/sat-nav/truck-sat-nav/ https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/sat-nav/truck-sat-nav/
- 2_listerine_pls 7y agoThey probably infer your vehicle type from acceleration data
- gambiting 7y agoHow would that be possible? My sister has a new VW Polo with a 1.0L 65bhp engine, the official time to 60 is a glacial 16.5 seconds. I'm sure its acceleration profile would match that of a fully loaded HGV.
- Steve44 7y ago> The main difference between Waze and Google Maps is that Waze uses real time traffic data. Google Maps has real time traffic data and the accuracy is staggering. I occasionally use Google Maps for navigation in the car and it even highlights traffic stationary at traffic lights and temporary road works as I’m approaching. This level or real time detail really amazed me. I’ve not spent any time looking onto how they do it but assume they are continually tracking everyone with a phone, or at least running Google Maps Navigation, and using their real time location and speed.
- krn 7y ago> Google Maps has real time traffic data and the accuracy is staggering. But does Google Maps use real time traffic data to calculate the most optimal route in the same way as Waze does? As I understand, that's the main difference between the two.
- simplesleeper 7y agoThey certainly get different results - but as I said, I don't know the intricacies of their system
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- garblegarble 7y ago>But does Google Maps use real time traffic data to calculate the most optimal route in the same way as Waze does? Anecdotally in the UK I see Google Maps routing based on live traffic data. I also often get a reassurance notification "you are on the fastest route despite traffic" (and it distinguishes between "traffic" and "usual traffic"). Occasionally I'll also get a recommendation pushed to switch to another route which is faster
- Nannooskeeska 7y agoAnecdotal, but there have been several cases where I've been using Google Maps and it pops up a message saying that it found a faster route. All of these cases have been because of accidents or extreme traffic, and all have been on the same route (94 East from Eau Claire, WI to Madison, WI). As far as I know, Google Maps doesn't route traffic through side streets to save seconds like Waze does - it seems to re-route you when there are major delays.
- sails 7y agoSlight Tangent: I've got a feeling that private vehicles in Zone 1 (and 2...) benefit a tiny percentage of the population, and should be the next target for reducing inner city congestion (implementation perhaps tricky). Is this concept something you've come across in your work/field? If not, any ideas for what is next? I hope to see: 1. Car free days over weekends in high streets. 2. Entire high streets converted to pedestrian, bus & bike only. 3. A move to a more bike/bus friendly city, see Utrecht [1] [1] Utrecht: Planning for People & Bikes, Not for Cars https://vimeo.com/344373585 https://vimeo.com/344373585
- iicc 7y agohttps://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/30/kensington-chelsea-council-under-new-pressure-cycling-scheme-veto https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/30/kensington-c... >One of the UK’s wealthiest councils is facing renewed pressure over its decision to block a flagship safer cycling scheme after it emerged the authority could not say what proportion of the people who wrote in expressing views on the plan actually opposed it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44405730 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44405730 >Plans to pedestrianise Oxford Street in central London have been "taken off the table for good", Westminster City Council has confirmed.
- simplesleeper 7y ago1. Has no support from central london residents and 2. Sadiq Khan has already tried to Pedestrianise Oxford Street, but was blocked by parliament. 3. There are cycle lanes and cycle highways and there is a lot of development in the cycle space - and will no doubt be continued. Bus lanes and schemes to improve buses are constantly being tried, but their uptake is low, meaning that it is difficult to increase the service, as they are not very profitable
- genmon 7y agoSmall correction: the pedestrianisation of Oxford St (led by Khan and the GLA) was blocked by Westminster Council, not Parliament https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khans-plan-to-make-oxford-street-trafficfree-is-halted-by-council-a3825131.html https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khans-plan-to-m...
- adrianN 7y agoDo you have a citeable source for the claim that the underground pays for the roads? You often hear drivers that claim more rights because "they pay for the roads".
- buro9 7y agohttp://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-budget-2019-20.pdf http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-budget-2019-20.pdf Page 128. London Underground does bring in more revenue 2.864bn than it spends 2.041bn, and subsidises Streets and Buses to the tune of 0.889bn (with a little coming from media revenue too). However it isn't the 80% claimed above. Time to find out this: about 1 minute.
- soneil 7y agoDrivers don't pay for the roads - any more than smokers, drinkers, or anyone else that opts into a 'sin tax' pays for the roads. Vehicle duty & fuel tax both go into "general revenue", and roads are paid by local councils. "[road tax] was formally ended in 1936 after Winston Churchill asserted the following: [I]t is a monstrous assertion that any important body of taxpayers should claim proprietary rights over the particular quota of taxation which they contribute, and that all should not be brought into an area freely justiciable by the House of Commons." https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastructure-funding/englandandwales.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/infrastructure-funding/englanda... (aisde; a driver claiming to have more rights to roads because they pay extra tax on fuel, would be like a smoker claiming to have more rights to healthcare because they pay extra tax on tobacco products. I can imagine that wouldn't be popular. "General revenue" is supposed to disconnect source from sink to avoid exactly this.)
- rahimnathwani 7y ago"when the roads are mostly paid for by the cost of the London Underground" Taxes on fuel used in motor vehicles (duties and VAT) are something like 30bn GBP/year in the UK. London has about 1/6th of the UK's population, so let's assume 5bn/year comes from London. That's 5x the annual operating profit of London Underground[0]. Government income and expenditure is fungible, so it's hard to determine precisely whether X is paid for by Y or by Z. But it's clear that government revenue from London road users is much higher than the profit from London Underground. So it seems strange to assert that roads are paid for mostly by London Underground. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20865111 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20865111
- edh649 7y agoFor reference, from the 2019/20 TFL Budget, direct operating surplus' are: Streets -£167m Buses: -£722m Rail: -£49m Underground: £823m Elizabeth Line: -£267m Other: £9m Professional Services: -£560m Property: £69m Media: £145m [0] http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-budget-2019-20.pdf http://content.tfl.gov.uk/tfl-budget-2019-20.pdf
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- cucumberfanatic 7y ago"London has about 1/6th of the UK's population, so let's assume 5bn/year comes from London" isn't a good assumption - very few people drive/own cars in London.
- zaroth 7y agoAside from the ~£30b raised in fuel taxes, there's also the ~£6b raised in vehicle excise taxes. Both of those revenue streams go into a government general fund and are not allocated specifically for road maintenance, because they collect about 3x what is actually spent on highway & road infrastructure each year. [1] In short, the roads & highways are massively profitable. London's buses however, lose nearly ~£1b a year, which tanks the entire public transportation budget, and more than offsets the profit generated by the Underground. [1] - https://www.racfoundation.org/data/road-user-taxation-highways-spending-data-chart https://www.racfoundation.org/data/road-user-taxation-highwa...
- pfranz 7y agoHow far are they willing to go? I wouldn't be surprised London has similar problems, but in LA I owned a house on a "back road" that ran parallel to the 405 going north over a hill. The house was built 100 years ago. Neighbors told me the road was fine until Waze/Google maps about 10 years ago. My small house went up in value quite a bit the few years I was there, but if I wanted to buy a house on a cul-de-sac it would have been double the cost of my house. My neighbors over the 30+ years they lived there had added on to their house (like many others in the area). Last I heard they were unable to sell it--who would buy a large house on a very busy road? (their's wasn't the only example I saw) There's no school or anything to warrant blocking traffic. I'm sure it's a useful road for many people where taking the highway would double their travel time. They keep trying to expand the 405 and there aren't feasible public transit options. The few that exist rarely put you close enough to where you need to get. At least in the US, I feel like this road design fell out of favor a decade or two before GPSes and smart-phones. Instead of smaller roads that get improved as traffic increases, they have dedicated roads for thru traffic and neighborhoods become rat's nests, designed to discourage thru traffic. Neither system seems to "grow" very well, but of course locals prefer the "modern" approach. There was talk in my neighborhood of locals blocking off the road in the middle, which seems to make it more like the "modern" solution I've noticed in medium density housing and solve the "Waze problem."
- cr0sh 7y agoI wonder if they could add speed bumps/tables to slow the traffic down? That might be one solution - and fairly inexpensive, too.
- pfranz 7y agoLA has been adding them all over. I really hate speed bumps. It feels like a band-aid on a design problem that just causes premature wear on your car--but it might be their best option.