Video: "The Stroad"

[Ned Weasel]

https://youtu.be/ORzNZUeUHAM

What are people's thoughts on so-called "stroads" and this video's analysis of them?

Frankly, I think any analysis of the subject should far more technical. That would make it long enough to be a feature-length film, but I'd totally watch it.

One of the biggest things that was left out of this analysis was, between the 1950s and todays world, design standards for "stroads" generally evolved to become more "road-like."  Such as: greater distance between curb cuts, fewer unprotected left turns, less unprotected cross traffic, more medians, and you're more likely to find a grass verge between the car lanes and the sidewalk.  The one major disappointment, though, tends to be how rarely bike lanes are physically separated from car lanes–in North America, anyway.

I did, however, appreciate the description of how the Netherlands has been implementing a strict hierarchy of roads and streets, and re-working many roads in the process.

[andrepoiy]

I agree, new arterials are a lot more like roads. Less curb cuts, etc.

Where I live though, when a road is rebuilt, they would include bike infrastructure, a few yers ago it was lanes, but now they're making them raised multi-use trails, so that's pretty good.

[vdeane]

I think it's interesting that they blame long signal time on vehicle speed but don't mention volume, which IMO is the bigger factor there.

[Big John]

Yellow time is based on speed.  Green time should be based on volume.

[tradephoric]

Downtown Portland's one way grid has short cycle lengths.  The 280 ft blocks are timed for 13 MPH and runs 56 second cycles minimizing delays for pedestrians. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jGWdCknurM

Here is the relationship between grid spacing, coordination speed, and cycle length for a one-way square grid network: 

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

More anti-car propaganda. Yawn

[Ned Weasel]

More anti-car propaganda. Yawn

Would you care to elaborate?

[jamess]

More anti-car propaganda. Yawn

Its only anti-car if you think cars are intrinsically tied with bad design

[hotdogPi]

Can someone give me a summary? The video is 18 minutes long.

[SEWIGuy]

More anti-car propaganda. Yawn

Not really.  Mostly anti-poor design.  And I don't think they are wrong that "nobody goes to these places unless they have to." 

[Ned Weasel]

Can someone give me a summary? The video is 18 minutes long.

That is a summary!

Well, okay--  In essence, "stroad" is a slang term for a "street/road hybrid."*  In context, it typically refers to an arterial road, as it sits roughly in the middle of the hierarchy of roads, about halfway between local streets and freeways.  The "stroads" alluded to when the term is used as a pejorative, are typically arterial roads lined with commercial development and several access points.  While some are indeed better designed than others, the problems arise when the needs of through, relatively high-speed car traffic conflict with the needs of local access, especially to and from businesses.  The argument is generally that these types of roads neither work well for through traffic, nor for local access.

*Right off the bat, I think it's problematic to conceive of "streets" and "roads" as two wholly distinct entities.  I've always considered "road" to be an umbrella term, in that all streets are roads, but not all roads are streets.  That is, in my opinion, streets are a subset of roads.

[index]

More anti-car propaganda. Yawn

Would you care to elaborate?

Jamess and SEWIGuy are also correct. Being against the current standards of design commonly seen in North America does not in any way imply opposition to personal transport. (This should be really evident considering the alternatives to the stroad presented in the video still allow it. But, I highly doubt anyone making the quoted criticism or anything like that even watched the video or considered the point being made. It's either ignorance or arrogance driving a response like that, because, if they watched it, they'd see that their cars are still safe and in use) Yet, there are a select few members on this forum who, when they see anything that suggests even a slight deviation from this, respond like that or worse as a sort of knee-jerk, pearl-clutching reaction to something that doesn't immediately agree 100% with their beliefs on how things should be, placing them outside of their comfort zone. All over something that, in the end, allows them to keep living the lifestyle that they are used to with their cars. This is what happens to you when you refuse to have an open mind or even hear alternative views.

[tradephoric]

Narrator: Nobody is getting anywhere quickly on a stroad.

Woodward Avenue: Hold my beer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6823U0XJpDo&lc=Ugw2D_LWY4awXhmitS54AaABAg

[SkyPesos]

Yea, I'm in the "direct parking lot access from a major arterial is a bad and potentially dangerous idea"  camp.

[hotdogPi]

Yea, I'm in the "direct parking lot access from a major arterial is a bad and potentially dangerous idea"  camp.

How do you feel about connecting parking lots? (You can enter at any of the three but must exit at the one with the traffic signal.)

[sparker]

The narrator (and presumably auteur) of this piece does present some valid points; I'm particularly intrigued by his delineation of streets/connectors/roads -- with the latter encompassing any/all high-speed thoroughfares.  However, if he thinks that the solution lies with more conscious and better planning, he just might be tilting at the proverbial windmills.  The general reason "stroads", as he terms them, develop -- at least according to the video -- is a combination of the incursion of the "big box" approach to retailing (I'm talking about you, Wal Mart, Costco, Home Depot/Lowe's, etc.) and the mutual desire of those retailers and the locales they serve to place their facilities (a) away from the city center far enough to readily acquire and build upon open land, but (b) in proximity to residential areas to make patronage less of a long-distance ordeal.  Unless the jurisdiction has exceptionally deep pockets, "stroads", as depicted, tend to develop almost organically -- the facility on which these retailers are located will be expanded to accommodate the increased traffic, and a combination of dedicated signals and interim driveways will be built to provide the accessibility desired by the retailers.  The problem is more often than not that the comparatively deep pockets belong to those retailers, who can and do, in some cases, supply a "laundry list" of terms and conditions for their deployment of a new store location.  And those terms generally point toward the city or county ensuring access and providing the facilities to funnel large volumes of potential customers to the retail outlets -- something done on the jurisdiction's dime!  So street/road expansion occurs until a "stroad" is in place, since there's rarely enough available public funds to finance a set of through lanes and effective "C/D" lanes astride them -- and the concurrent encroachment onto previously private property.  So the jurisdiction "paints between the lines" of existing easement to satisfy the needs of the retailers without busting their own budget -- and a "stroad" is born, particularly when one large retailer follows another in turn along a road corridor. 

OK, the video auteur definitely displays a preference toward small in-town businesses and walking/biking access to such as a default characteristic.  If cities/counties could function on the revenues provided by such, they -- and most of the public planners working today -- would be celebrating a new standard.  But most jurisdictions don't have the fiscal ability to stand up to the pressures of securing ample revenue to take care of public-sector expenses (schools, services, and all the other public provisions) -- and the "big box" retailers have already internalized this and are able to play jurisdictions against each other for either "perks" in terms of reduced or delayed tax obligation, or reduced costs for permitting and other requirements -- things that, in the big picture, reduce the overall potential jurisdictional revenue gains from the deployment of the new retail facilities.  Of course, new facilities generally promise more area employment opportunities -- so rather convoluted cost-benefit formulae are used to justify the positive vs. negative aspects of new facilities. 

So it's just as much a function of politics and economics (and the juncture of both) as planning.  A lot of the problem could be dealt with by zoning regulations -- and enforcement of such -- but, again, the "big box" stores often locate in unincorporated areas that have less stringent regs than the cities themselves.  Maybe it just that capitalist sensibilities tend to prevail over communitarian ones -- but that's an issue that is liable to prove pretty intractable in anything but exceptionally long-term consideration.  "Stroads" are liable to be with us for quite some time because of this dilemma.       

[johndoe]

Thanks for sharing.  I find a lot of Strong Town's topics interesting and a nice alternative perspective compared to the norm in the traffic engineering world.  It reminds me of the graph from school:


They make some fair points, but it feels exaggerated (suburbs are all going to go bankrupt because they widened a road!).  Could we be more efficient if cars went away entirely and everyone used transit / bicycles?  Sure.  Could we eliminate thousands of  fatalities if each car had a speed limit of 3 mph?  Sure.  But guess what?  I don't think people are willing to live like that.  I see the roadway characteristics more of a "effect" than a "cause" - people vote with their feet and they want single family homes on large lots with an Explorer or Yukon in the driveway.  IMO arguing that those decisions should be taxed higher would be more convincing than saying we should never widen another road.  The argument that "nO oNe WaNtS tO bE hErE" doesn't hold any water for me - why are there 35,000 people on that road everyday?  What areas of your city are growing faster, downtown or the suburbs?

The "stroad" comes about because of a balancing act.  If it were up to developers there would be more access and less mobility.  If it were up to engineers there would be less access and more mobility.  They battle, and we end up with the "sort of kind of" routes.  It's not a problem of engineering standards.  It's also a change over time - if the road doubles in volume over 35 years the engineer might want to reduce access but the property owner doesn't want that.

I also wonder about the safety stats - how many of those fatalities were at this kind of facility versus others (rural areas, single vehicle crashes, etc)

[Road Hog]

I prefer to think of it as a Reet.

A smaller version of this can be called a Reet Petite.

[GaryV]

The video seems to think there are only 2 kinds of acceptable roadways - urban downtown streets and high speed roads between those urban areas.  With good examples of both only in the Netherlands.  Really?  I'm sure the Netherlands has some areas that are his "stroad".

And what does he call a rural dirt road?

[sparker]

The video seems to think there are only 2 kinds of acceptable roadways - urban downtown streets and high speed roads between those urban areas.  With good examples of both only in the Netherlands.  Really?  I'm sure the Netherlands has some areas that are his "stroad".

And what does he call a rural dirt road?

Who knows what he calls a dirt road out in the country.  But it appears this gentleman is part of that urbanist contingency that for all intents & purposes cleaves the world into (1) car-friendly and (2) people-friendly; this tends to imply that the driving public is somehow an adversary to be eliminated -- or, barring that, at least channeled into venues where they won't interfere -- or even interact -- with the "real" valuable people, those who don't use, have, or want vehicles -- they're content where they are.   Rather than come up with any innovative solutions that will benefit the larger population -- including car owners/users -- folks such as the author here prefer a segregation approach -- sector A for their preferred non-mobile "people" and sector B for those who drive; the ideal street is viewed -- literally within the video -- as devoid of automobiles (although I didn't see any delivery trucks serving those streetside stores -- curious; is everything brought in by hand truck?).   Frankly, I don't know of any businesses with any longevity -- at least outside of NYC -- that can and do persist without some significant level of business brought in via automobile.   

Now -- when an if fossil fuels are a thing of the past, and electric (or some propulsive means devised down the line) vehicles are the norm, the sustainability/pollution argument, or at least a sizeable chunk of it, becomes moot.  Mass migration from suburbs/exurbs to dense city cores isn't likely to occur bar a calamity, including sustained negative population growth, occuring that drives such moves.  But for the present, the notion of an "urban reservation" absent the trappings of mobility seem untenable in the long run except for those areas previously configured as such by both physical barriers and limited access (e.g. Manhattan, where in reality, the choice to not emphasize vehicle traffic is reinforced not only by resident preferences but by outside drivers avoiding it like the plague!).  As long as we exist in a quasi-capitalist system, getting folks to where that money is exchanged for goods and services will be an ongoing goal and more often than not a policy preference.  Yeah, we can do better than "stroads", but there will have to be profound changes in the relationships between the private/corporate sector, which has and still resembles regularized mutual bribery and/or extortion in order to carve out a place for what the video author terms acceptable solutions such as composite through roads with accessways astride. 

As an ironic aside, in a backhanded way this could be a call for more bypass freeways diverting traffic that really doesn't have to be there from both residential and commercial areas. 

[SEWIGuy]

The video seems to think there are only 2 kinds of acceptable roadways - urban downtown streets and high speed roads between those urban areas.  With good examples of both only in the Netherlands.  Really?  I'm sure the Netherlands has some areas that are his "stroad".

And what does he call a rural dirt road?

Who knows what he calls a dirt road out in the country.  But it appears this gentleman is part of that urbanist contingency that for all intents & purposes cleaves the world into (1) car-friendly and (2) people-friendly; this tends to imply that the driving public is somehow an adversary to be eliminated -- or, barring that, at least channeled into venues where they won't interfere -- or even interact -- with the "real" valuable people, those who don't use, have, or want vehicles -- they're content where they are.   Rather than come up with any innovative solutions that will benefit the larger population -- including car owners/users -- folks such as the author here prefer a segregation approach -- sector A for their preferred non-mobile "people" and sector B for those who drive; the ideal street is viewed -- literally within the video -- as devoid of automobiles (although I didn't see any delivery trucks serving those streetside stores -- curious; is everything brought in by hand truck?).   Frankly, I don't know of any businesses with any longevity -- at least outside of NYC -- that can and do persist without some significant level of business brought in via automobile.   

I don't think you watched the entire thing.  Because he hardly suggests what you think he is suggesting.

[Scott5114]

"Stroad" is a stupid-sounding term that sounds more like a type of Pokémon than any sort of transportation appurtenance.

[sparker]

The video seems to think there are only 2 kinds of acceptable roadways - urban downtown streets and high speed roads between those urban areas.  With good examples of both only in the Netherlands.  Really?  I'm sure the Netherlands has some areas that are his "stroad".

And what does he call a rural dirt road?

Who knows what he calls a dirt road out in the country.  But it appears this gentleman is part of that urbanist contingency that for all intents & purposes cleaves the world into (1) car-friendly and (2) people-friendly; this tends to imply that the driving public is somehow an adversary to be eliminated -- or, barring that, at least channeled into venues where they won't interfere -- or even interact -- with the "real" valuable people, those who don't use, have, or want vehicles -- they're content where they are.   Rather than come up with any innovative solutions that will benefit the larger population -- including car owners/users -- folks such as the author here prefer a segregation approach -- sector A for their preferred non-mobile "people" and sector B for those who drive; the ideal street is viewed -- literally within the video -- as devoid of automobiles (although I didn't see any delivery trucks serving those streetside stores -- curious; is everything brought in by hand truck?).   Frankly, I don't know of any businesses with any longevity -- at least outside of NYC -- that can and do persist without some significant level of business brought in via automobile.   

I don't think you watched the entire thing.  Because he hardly suggests what you think he is suggesting.

I'll acknowledge that a lot -- not all -- of his suggestions are straightforward and doable.  But there's a difference between suggestion and implication -- and the author is implying, as he has done in previous videos (yes, there's such a thing as context!) that there is a divide between the pedestrian/bicycle world and that of automobiles -- and that the former needs to be at least buffered from the latter.  From a purely safety standpoint, this is understandable.  But, from his decidedly condescending tone, he isn't too far from basic tribalism in that regard.  If he has a beef with consumer behavior -- and his differentiation between the type of businesses located out on the "stroad" and the smaller-scale retail configuration he quite clearly prefers tends to indicate this -- then he's tilting at a much larger and more durable windmill than his basic transportation suggestions can and will address. 

I don't intend to engage in a general sociopolitical/socioeconomic treatise here, but a wide application of what the author suggests requires massive expenditures of both private and public funds.  He obviously prefers the Euro model, which entails high personal/corporate taxation rates to finance those expenditures.  But if he has the intelligence I think he has, he knows that scenario isn't applicable in the U.S. -- and only marginally more feasible in Canada.  Look at the trouble Biden and company are having squeezing an long-term infrastructure plan out of Congress -- and the blowback if a substantial amount of that were to be spent on eliminating or even limiting automotive access to city streets.   From what has been released of the aspects of the administration's general outline to date, some activity of this kind, backed in part by Buttigieg, is included; it's already come under fire from the right side of the aisle, so its continued inclusion isn't guaranteed by any means.  Maybe our Canadian video author (gives it away with "aboot" and a prevalence of "stroad" shots from Ontario) is accustomed to dealing with a parliamentary system -- but carving out a niche following and using it for leverage works markedly better in such a system than the federal one in the US (although you-know-who has managed to appropriate that methodology to gain control of one of our 2 parties).   Nevertheless, it's likely that any solutions that involve truncating automobile access won't pass the necessary federal vetting required for widespread application; it's more likely that "spot" or "pilot" programs, placed in locales that already have some similar measures in place via prior local action, will see some deployment.  Fortunately, the more pronounced naysayers probably wouldn't be caught dead viewing the author's video -- so a "save the stroad" movement is unlikely!

[GaryV]

There's an IKEA in Amsterdam.  It's located next to a "road" (something high-speed and limited access with an exit), but that's relatively new since the satellite view shows dirt.  Around the other side of IKEA are two things that couldn't be considered anything but "stroads".  Any "streets" are on the opposite side of the "stroads" from IKEA.

So it appears that the Dutch don't get to IKEA by walking or biking, any more than those in the US or Canada do.

[hotdogPi]

There's an IKEA in Amsterdam.  It's located next to a "road" (something high-speed and limited access with an exit), but that's relatively new since the satellite view shows dirt.  Around the other side of IKEA are two things that couldn't be considered anything but "stroads".  Any "streets" are on the opposite side of the "stroads" from IKEA.

So it appears that the Dutch don't get to IKEA by walking or biking, any more than those in the US or Canada do.

How do you get your stuff from IKEA to your home if you're walking or biking? Have you looked at places that don't sell huge items?