It’s Thursday and thankfully I am no longer in Los Angeles. According to Waze, Thursdays are the worst days for traffic in Los Angeles.

(Pictured - above - ABC7's Traffic Specialist Alysha del Valle giving yesterday's morning traffic report with the help of Waze.)

http://tinyurl.com/ndqg5md - Waze Study: Thursdays are Worst for L.A. Traffic



Los Angeles is also the epicenter of Waze’s influence in North America. That influence is built upon the popularity of the free traffic app and was given a big boost by the Carmaggedon non-event of four years ago when Waze capitalized on construction-related traffic hysteria and, in partnership with the local ABC TV affiliate, provided blow-by-blow traffic reports from Wazers in the L.A. area.

The aftershock of that event is the enduring relationship between Waze and ABC7 in L.A. which is pointing the way toward partnerships with other media outlets throughout the U.S. and, most recently, tie ups with metropolitan area traffic authorities like those in Boston (http://tinyurl.com/opzdlsl - Boston Partners with Traffic App Waze). To burnish its traffic credentials Waze put out the “research report” last fall showing Thursdays as the worst days for traffic, presumably based on average speeds and travel times, while Friday’s were the worst days for accidents, according to Waze.

Waze is starting to turn up the volume on its traffic messaging. The battle for traffic information dominance is being fought on several fronts but Waze has built its foundation from day one on probe data – the so-called “floating vehicle probes” represented by individual Waze users – Wazers.

Traffic data consists of probe data – for determining traffic flow or speeds relative to particular road segments – and incident data for identifying accidents or other traffic-related events and their impact. (There are multiple standards for identifying more and smaller road segments for more accurate real-time and predictive traffic information.)

Probe data has historically been gathered from fleet vehicles (trucks, taxis, etc.), and mobile devices (smartphones, PNDs, anti-theft modules, etc.). Increasingly, flow data is being gathered by roadside Bluetooth and, eventually, Wi-Fi devices that can measure travel times for individual devices moving past roadside sensors.

Incident data is normally aggregated from public authorities such as the police and enhanced with inputs from radio broadcasters who employ their own traffic spotters and, in some instances, cameras and helicopters. Departments of Transportation also provide traffic camera information into the mix. TrafficLand is the dominant provider of traffic camera feeds in North America.

Market leading traffic information providers such as TomTom, HERE and INRIX combine all of these information inputs and develop and refine algorithms for predicting future traffic patterns. These traffic predictions which correlate to times of the day, days of the week and particular road segments, are then used to determine the best routes for getting around – fastest, shortest, most fuel efficient.

Over the years Waze has stood its ground, focusing like a laser on the probe data and more or less ignoring predictive traffic models. A key claim to fame and differentiation for Waze is its knowledge of side streets. Waze wants users to believe that it has superior intelligence on traffic flows on side streets. This claim has yet to be validated, but it is reflected in the tendency of Waze to navigate Wazers off of main roads, which are often congested.

This strategy has, so far, been effective. In fact it is particularly powerful when consumers make a side by side comparison to competing solutions.

A recent GigaOM review of a MY15 Audi A3 with SiriusXM traffic was brutal in its assessment of the satellite-delivered traffic info:

“Sirius Traffic: This alerts you to accidents and detours, but mostly confirms that you’re in heavy traffic after it’s too late. I prefer Waze, which provides far more useful and real-time information to avoid or circumvent traffic. Access to Waze or the full Google Maps–Waze integration cannot come soon enough, and hopefully will be added to Audi Connect, which features several other Google services.”

(http://tinyurl.com/lykxar7 - "My Experience Driving the New Audi 4G LTE Car" - GigaOM)



(SiriusXM has enhanced its traffic information with probe data but multiple attempts to get a detailed description of these enhancements and their potential impact were unsuccessful.)

This poignant assessment pointed up one of the biggest shortcomings of built-in navigation solutions – the effective integration of floating car probe data. Waze has almost single-handedly established probe data as table stakes for a competitive traffic information solution. TomTom has responded with its unconfirmed partnership with Apple (probes-for-maps), INRIX and HERE leverage fleet, OEM and mobile device probes and Google and Waze have their own large user populations.

Of course, not all probes are created equal. A probe input from a navigation system in a car is of greater value and relevance than a probe derived from a mobile device. This is where HERE, the dominant on-board map supplier globally, has an edge.

In spite of these facts, car makers have failed to recognize the power of probe data. Only a handful of car makers – Audi, Ford, and BMW among others – have enabled probe data collection from their own vehicles. Even GM/OnStar has yet to integrate probe data into its on-board navigation offering.

All that being said, Waze will increasingly be recognized for its value in identifying trips and travel times. Uber has brought the importance of trip data to light and Waze has the power to collect and interpret this information in real-time or historically.

Analyzing trip data raises privacy questions, but presumably this data can be anonymized. Traffic planners will increasingly be looking to understand the dynamic elements of the “trip load” in their regions and apps like Waze and Uber will enhance the visibility of traffic authorities into what trips are being made, when and how.

It’s not too late for the car companies to get into this act. Los Angeles took the novel step in 2014 of requiring all taxi drivers to be hail-able via apps.

This decision by Los Angeles makes cabs instantly and infinitely easier to summon, leveling the playing field with Uber. But it also creates the potential for the creation of a reservoir of data for the city to tap – although city representatives are coy about their intentions on this front.

Of course, requiring cab drivers to use ride-hailing apps like Flywheel and Curb flies in the face of the demands of the distracted driving community which would see smartphone use in the car forbidden. No doubt, the city also requires the cab drivers to adhere to California’s distraction mitigation-related laws.

The bottom line is that there is a battle of the probes shaping up in the marketplace for traffic information. Car makers must work out how to capture their own probe data to enhance their own on-board and embedded navigation systems with crowd-sourced traffic information.

Probe-obsessed traffic information users – of which Waze users constitute a significant proportion – will always compare competing solutions to the look-out-the-window ground truth situation. If solutions from SiriusXM and others can’t pass this test in the future, it may well be the end of the road.

A further note, the GigaOM review also highlights the fact that drivers will increasingly have multiple sources of traffic information. Car makers need to determine whether they will offer a preferred own-branded traffic solution (integrating own probes) or whether they will simply hand the traffic analysis to third parties such as Waze.

I am just glad I am back home missing the highest accident day in L.A.: Fridays… according to Waze.