Strong Towns founder publishes a book

[MCRoads]

The biggest fallacy in transportation planning is when someone assumes we must have either 100% transit-centered or 100% car-centered. They can and should coexist, and the ideal city design accommodates people that want to live both lifestyles.

Definitely agree on this. Wish more people recognized that.

[SkyPesos]

Not entirely related to the book, but found it interesting that the world "stroad" (which came from Strong Towns) is used in a FHWA report recently (Page 20).

[Scott5114]

So using the definitions there, a "stroad" is just a road that someone is really butthurt about because they want it to be a street.

[kkt]

A shame that possibly good points are diluted by making up a new unnecessary word.

[kalvado]

A shame that possibly good points are diluted by making up a new unnecessary word.

Actually highlights the problem pretty well, although new word doesn't offer any solution...

[GaryV]

A shame that possibly good points are diluted by making up a new unnecessary word.

Actually highlights the problem pretty well, although new word doesn't offer any solution...

What kind of solution could there be:
1. "No one can develop anything here because this is a road."
2. "Because of all the development here, this is now a street, and no one can use it for longer-distance driving." (Yeah, right)

I imagine that most places that are called "stroads" are roads where rule 1 was ignored. Unless you are going to artificially reduce/restrict the amount of people, businesses, etc. that can be in an area, some roads inevitably will evolve into stroads.

[kalvado]

A shame that possibly good points are diluted by making up a new unnecessary word.

Actually highlights the problem pretty well, although new word doesn't offer any solution...

What kind of solution could there be:
1. "No one can develop anything here because this is a road."
2. "Because of all the development here, this is now a street, and no one can use it for longer-distance driving." (Yeah, right)

I imagine that most places that are called "stroads" are roads where rule 1 was ignored. Unless you are going to artificially reduce/restrict the amount of people, businesses, etc. that can be in an area, some roads inevitably will evolve into stroads.

Solution would be, for example,  could be like developing a grid with primary road and parallel streets for more local movements. Of course, next thing would be the complaint that road is dividing blah blah.
Reality is that growth of area means, amoung other thing, more movements to be accommodated. That should include new movement paths.   

[Bruce]

It is entirely possible to accommodate new growth on an existing road without making it very dangerous to cross for pedestrians and cyclists. Just slow down traffic, add barriers, and don't widen it to the size of Rhode Island. It may take an extra minute for thru traffic, but the benefits far outweigh that con.

[SkyPesos]

I imagine that most places that are called "stroads" are roads where rule 1 was ignored. Unless you are going to artificially reduce/restrict the amount of people, businesses, etc. that can be in an area, some roads inevitably will evolve into stroads.

From what I can get from their definitions, limiting driveway access to from a "stroad"  is a way to turn it into a "road" . Access can be provided by intersecting roads, or frontage lanes for a road.

I had US 23 north of Columbus in mind when writing this. Would love for it to become more like a "road"  than a "stroad"

[kalvado]

It is entirely possible to accommodate new growth on an existing road without making it very dangerous to cross for pedestrians and cyclists. Just slow down traffic, add barriers, and don't widen it to the size of Rhode Island. It may take an extra minute for thru traffic, but the benefits far outweigh that con.

That's exactly my problem with many of those willing to change the world - lack of basic arithmetic skills.
One lane of highway has throughput of about 1600-1800 vph. Reduce seed limit? 1200. Add traffic control? 1000. Traffic calming and barriers? 750. School buses? 650. City buses? 500.
Assuming 2 hours worth of  commute traffic, you basically limit the number of people that street serves to about 2000-3000, depending on demographics... Oh, and the supermarket capture area is about 10000 people.

[Scott5114]

It is entirely possible to accommodate new growth on an existing road without making it very dangerous to cross for pedestrians and cyclists. Just slow down traffic, add barriers, and don't widen it to the size of Rhode Island. It may take an extra minute for thru traffic, but the benefits far outweigh that con.

It's not too hard to imagine a scenario where the economic benefit of getting traffic through a town far exceeds the GDP of the entire town and all the assets in it put together.

Sure, that doesn't take into account "quality of life", but then you start getting into mushy, incalculable stuff like "which is greater, the quality of life benefit to having a slow street to the few dozen people that live nearby or the quality of life benefit of getting an Amazon truck through town to the city up the road and benefiting a large number of people a small amount".

[vdeane]

Reduce seed limit? 1200.

More vegetation = faster traffic? 

[algorerhythms]

The biggest fallacy in transportation planning is when someone assumes we must have either 100% transit-centered or 100% car-centered. They can and should coexist, and the ideal city design accommodates people that want to live both lifestyles.

Definitely agree on this. Wish more people recognized that.

The problem is that in most of the United States, if you suggest anything that is less than 150% car-centered, you get drowned out by a bunch of screeching noises about "urbanists."

It is entirely possible to accommodate new growth on an existing road without making it very dangerous to cross for pedestrians and cyclists. Just slow down traffic, add barriers, and don't widen it to the size of Rhode Island. It may take an extra minute for thru traffic, but the benefits far outweigh that con.

It's not too hard to imagine a scenario where the economic benefit of getting traffic through a town far exceeds the GDP of the entire town and all the assets in it put together.

Sure, that doesn't take into account "quality of life", but then you start getting into mushy, incalculable stuff like "which is greater, the quality of life benefit to having a slow street to the few dozen people that live nearby or the quality of life benefit of getting an Amazon truck through town to the city up the road and benefiting a large number of people a small amount".

If the economic value of the traffic passing through the town is so much more than the value of the town itself, then it seems like both would be better served by the highway going around the town rather than straight through it.

[Max Rockatansky]

Part of the problem is that a lot urbanists have gotten into positions they ought to not be filling.  Being openly hostile to anything to do with cars isn't an effective planning strategy (an example being the YouTuber CityNerd).  There is a reason a lot of us recoil suddenly when we see a suggestion brought up by an urbanist or urbanist group.  For every good idea an urbanist may have it tends to get buried under the ideology of "fuck cars."

[algorerhythms]

Part of the problem is that a lot urbanists have gotten into positions they ought to not be filling.  Being openly hostile to anything to do with cars isn't much help either.  There is a reason a lot of us recoil suddenly when we see a suggestion brought up by an urbanist or urbanist group.  For every good idea an urbanist may have it tends to get buried under the ideology of "fuck cars."

More screeching.

[Max Rockatansky]

Part of the problem is that a lot urbanists have gotten into positions they ought to not be filling.  Being openly hostile to anything to do with cars isn't much help either.  There is a reason a lot of us recoil suddenly when we see a suggestion brought up by an urbanist or urbanist group.  For every good idea an urbanist may have it tends to get buried under the ideology of "fuck cars."

More screeching.

Why?  Because I called urbanism the ideology that it is?  Give me balanced planning any day of the week.  Going from one extreme or another (this goes for fully car centric planning also) is not a viable strategy.  The trouble the urbanism crowd will deny this and claim anyone disagreeing is wrong.

[algorerhythms]

Balanced planning is one thing, but that is very rarely what we get in the U.S. Personally, I'm not "anti-car". Cars are like any other technology, they can be used well and they can be used poorly. By building infrastructure that makes driving a basic requirement of life (to the point where we let 90+-year-old people who are incapable of driving safely to continue driving because taking away their license would be cruel), we are not using this technology well. There need to be alternatives available for people who either are not capable of driving, or don't want to drive. In most of the U.S. those alternatives don't exist, and if you suggest them you get shouted down as being "anti-car".

[kalvado]

Balanced planning is one thing, but that is very rarely what we get in the U.S. Personally, I'm not "anti-car". Cars are like any other technology, they can be used well and they can be used poorly. By building infrastructure that makes driving a basic requirement of life (to the point where we let 90+-year-old people who are incapable of driving safely to continue driving because taking away their license would be cruel), we are not using this technology well. There need to be alternatives available for people who either are not capable of driving, or don't want to drive. In most of the U.S. those alternatives don't exist, and if you suggest them you get shouted down as being "anti-car".

This significantly depends on population density. Single family homes on even a small lot are not well suited for anything other than personal transportation. Walking a few miles a day in any weather isn't really an option for most people. Biking is also weather dependent.
Density is the bigger issue in general; city centers with lots of business requiring commute from those sparse outer areas do have problems with accomodations to both concepts.

Walking and biking are even less suitable for 90 year olds, honestly speaking, regardless of weather. The only option is minimized travel distance - high density or delivery. I wonder if increased reliance on delivery has anything to do with population aging?
That is to say, getting urbanist's society would require bulldozing most existing residential housing to build higher density city centers and clearing up suburbs. At the time when construction is becoming too expensive for most.   

[Scott5114]

Part of the problem is that a lot urbanists have gotten into positions they ought to not be filling.  Being openly hostile to anything to do with cars isn't much help either.  There is a reason a lot of us recoil suddenly when we see a suggestion brought up by an urbanist or urbanist group.  For every good idea an urbanist may have it tends to get buried under the ideology of "fuck cars."

More screeching.

Might want to get your brakes checked then.

[Max Rockatansky]

The problem at the root of this is that like or not the modern world does revolve around having an automobile.  That root cause really goes back the early automobile era when they began to become affordable for the general populace.  The most affordable and practical option coming to prominence as the dominant transportation form should be no surprise.  The urbanism crowd attempts to deny that this reality for the majority of commuters.

While there should be alternatives available the problem is the urbanism advocacy has done a poor job advocating for them.  Demanding things like the removal of freeways like I-275 in Tampa or going on Reddit to create "fuck cars"  threads doesn't endear to the masses.  Stuff like CityNerd equating the entire road community as akin to Kernals12 is an example of the low brow behavior typical in the urbanism crowd. 

As someone who does distance running and cycling I have every incentive to support multimodal transportation corridors.  I would just prefer a less insane crowd to be pushing for and creating the best models for everything. 

[algorerhythms]

The problem at the root of this is that like or not the modern world does revolve around having an automobile.  That root cause really goes back the early automobile era when they began to become affordable for the general populace.  The most affordable and practical option coming to prominence as the dominant transportation form should be no surprise.  The urbanism crowd attempts to deny that this reality for the majority of commuters.

While there should be alternatives available the problem is the urbanism advocacy has done a poor job advocating for them.  Demanding things like the removal of freeways like I-275 in Tampa or going on Reddit to create "fuck cars"  threads doesn't endear to the masses.  Stuff like CityNerd equating the entire road community as akin to Kernals12 is an example of the low brow behavior typical in the urbanism crowd. 

How is claiming that "fuck cars" represents people who want alternatives to car transport any different than claiming that Kernals12 represents the road community?

Balanced planning is one thing, but that is very rarely what we get in the U.S. Personally, I'm not "anti-car". Cars are like any other technology, they can be used well and they can be used poorly. By building infrastructure that makes driving a basic requirement of life (to the point where we let 90+-year-old people who are incapable of driving safely to continue driving because taking away their license would be cruel), we are not using this technology well. There need to be alternatives available for people who either are not capable of driving, or don't want to drive. In most of the U.S. those alternatives don't exist, and if you suggest them you get shouted down as being "anti-car".

This significantly depends on population density. Single family homes on even a small lot are not well suited for anything other than personal transportation. Walking a few miles a day in any weather isn't really an option for most people. Biking is also weather dependent.
Density is the bigger issue in general; city centers with lots of business requiring commute from those sparse outer areas do have problems with accomodations to both concepts.

Walking and biking are even less suitable for 90 year olds, honestly speaking, regardless of weather. The only option is minimized travel distance - high density or delivery. I wonder if increased reliance on delivery has anything to do with population aging?

Walking and biking aren't the only alternatives that can exist. If there was a decent public transit system, then our theoretical 90-year-old could use that. But basic public transit generally isn't invested in in North America because it's assumed it's only for the poor; I've heard people casually refer to buses as "loser cruisers" -- and the bus service around where I live is so bad that it is literally faster to walk than to take the bus. And that's not even to get into the fact that in much of North America it's illegal to build anything other than those low-density developments -- so despite a housing shortage in many areas, particularly in high-demand places like California, it's illegal to build higher density housing that could help meet that demand (though IIRC that has changed recently in California, it's still true in many areas).

[Max Rockatansky]

I mean hey, you're the one who opened the door for this when you generalized the populace as being largely 150% car-centric.  The replies prior to you seem sensible enough to build some constructive dialog off of.  Why not try some arguments for how a balanced model of automotive and transit infrastructure might be the most overall beneficial approach?  Stereotyping the general car utilizing populace as something disagreeable is an example of that urbanism hostility I speak of. 

[kalvado]

Balanced planning is one thing, but that is very rarely what we get in the U.S. Personally, I'm not "anti-car". Cars are like any other technology, they can be used well and they can be used poorly. By building infrastructure that makes driving a basic requirement of life (to the point where we let 90+-year-old people who are incapable of driving safely to continue driving because taking away their license would be cruel), we are not using this technology well. There need to be alternatives available for people who either are not capable of driving, or don't want to drive. In most of the U.S. those alternatives don't exist, and if you suggest them you get shouted down as being "anti-car".

This significantly depends on population density. Single family homes on even a small lot are not well suited for anything other than personal transportation. Walking a few miles a day in any weather isn't really an option for most people. Biking is also weather dependent.
Density is the bigger issue in general; city centers with lots of business requiring commute from those sparse outer areas do have problems with accomodations to both concepts.

Walking and biking are even less suitable for 90 year olds, honestly speaking, regardless of weather. The only option is minimized travel distance - high density or delivery. I wonder if increased reliance on delivery has anything to do with population aging?

Walking and biking aren't the only alternatives that can exist. If there was a decent public transit system, then our theoretical 90-year-old could use that. But basic public transit generally isn't invested in in North America because it's assumed it's only for the poor; I've heard people casually refer to buses as "loser cruisers" -- and the bus service around where I live is so bad that it is literally faster to walk than to take the bus. And that's not even to get into the fact that in much of North America it's illegal to build anything other than those low-density developments -- so despite a housing shortage in many areas, particularly in high-demand places like California, it's illegal to build higher density housing that could help meet that demand (though IIRC that has changed recently in California, it's still true in many areas).

Again, public transportation works in high density areas. Single family house on a lot precludes meaningful pubic transportation - until it is a park and ride to a major employment / event center.
Investments in public transportation are enormous, but they get burnt through.  on one hand because nobody realizes the scale of cash burn; on the other - because accountability is non-existent. It's ironic, but public transportation is often more expensive than driving.
Single-family format is indeed very resource intensive and has to shrink. But, as discussed in a parallel thread, apartment building are being built. I do see plenty of new-builts around. Probably best way to improve things is to clean up city centers of slums historic areas. That would instantly be called "gentrification" and throwned upon. Not to mention such thing as jobs - people need  to make their living, concept seemingly foreign to urbanist ideology.

[formulanone]

While there should be alternatives available the problem is the urbanism advocacy has done a poor job advocating for them.  Demanding things like the removal of freeways like I-275 in Tampa or going on Reddit to create "fuck cars"  threads doesn't endear to the masses.  Stuff like CityNerd equating the entire road community as akin to Kernals12 is an example of the low brow behavior typical in the urbanism crowd. 

As someone who does distance running and cycling I have every incentive to support multimodal transportation corridors.  I would just prefer a less insane crowd to be pushing for and creating the best models for everything. 

The problem is the medium to broadcast these (and many other) messages has equated one-sided extremism with Signal, and balanced collaboration as Noise to be subsequently filtered.

[Max Rockatansky]

While there should be alternatives available the problem is the urbanism advocacy has done a poor job advocating for them.  Demanding things like the removal of freeways like I-275 in Tampa or going on Reddit to create "fuck cars"  threads doesn't endear to the masses.  Stuff like CityNerd equating the entire road community as akin to Kernals12 is an example of the low brow behavior typical in the urbanism crowd. 

As someone who does distance running and cycling I have every incentive to support multimodal transportation corridors.  I would just prefer a less insane crowd to be pushing for and creating the best models for everything. 

The problem is the medium to broadcast these (and many other) messages has equated one-sided extremism with Signal, and balanced collaboration as Noise to be subsequently filtered.

Yes, part of the problem is that the wrong people screaming the loudest get the most attention.