3 ms·

Why do you need to “fix” a stroad? Not everyone wants to live in a young bicyclist’s idealistic utopia. The reason people like high speed roads is that it saves

Why do you need to “fix” a stroad? Not everyone wants to live in a young bicyclist’s idealistic utopia. The reason people like high speed roads is that it saves time, and time matters. Biking and public transit are both slow compared to cars, and most people like the convenience cars offer. The point to point nature of driving, the faster travel speeds, the protection from weather, the capacity for people/cargo, and so on are a massive quality of life boost. Most people, particularly as they age into their late 20s/early 30s and start families, like having more space. It is useful for them to have the higher quality of life you get from a large home with a yard, but with fast access to areas with shops and restaurants. Having businesses and parking immediately accessible from high speed roads gives you that.

ragebol 5y ago
Point is that stroads don't give you that fast travel, because of all the traffic that needs getting in and off. The alternative of having a dedicated through-travel road with streets on the sides to access actual destinations does allow both fast travel and easy access to destinations.
Scott_Sanderson 5y ago
You should check out the NJB you tube links. Stroads aren't fast for car travel. If you want a fast road, design for that. Stroad design gives you the worst of both worlds: slow and terrible for anything other than driving/parking.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I've seen these videos (they've been repeatedly brought up in other similar discussions), and I just am not convinced. It doesn't match my reality across several cities and states, where "stroads" seem totally fine and functional.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
> The reason people like high speed roads is that it saves time, and time matters. Biking and public transit are both slow compared to cars *Cities build streets primarily around cars* You: Look! Cars are more convenient!! This isn't some iron law of the universe, that cars are faster even for basic errands happens because we choose to make it that way. When I was living on the outskirts of Munich, many short trips to grocery stores and the like would take a similar amount of time for biking and driving, because they design their streets and roads for cars AND bikes AND walking, not mainly just cars like in the US.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I keep hearing this line about how cars are faster because cities 'choose' to make it that way. This isn't a convincing argument to me. Cars are fundamentally a faster mode of transportation. Just like walking cannot realize a maximum speed similar to bicycles, neither walking nor biking can realize a maximum speed similar to cars (at least safely). Driving is faster, first and foremost, because cars are faster and not because cities are making other modes slower. The faster travel times that cars unlock is a massive boost to quality of life that many, many people enjoy and take advantage of. That inherent value is why people are willing to pay taxes to fund roads for cars, and why cities have developed road infrastructure. It's not some kind of conspiracy theory to bring down bikes - the reality is that bikes are simply slower and there isn't some deeper level of insight beyond that.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    No, this is incorrect. High speed trains and planes both have a higher top speed than cars. Does that mean trains and planes are by default a faster way to get around for all trips? No, of course not. How infrastructure is built around them matters just as much. Obviously there are trips in which they are indeed faster than cars, but plenty too where they’re impractical, or slower. Cars have a higher top speed than bikes, sure, but they also demand far more space. Given equal space between cars and bikes, bikes will often end up fastest for trips under a mile or two — simply because drivers are more likely to get stuck in traffic. Especially since it’s easy to have walk bike cut-throughs. Which, I know, you’ll object to as unfair, but it’s unfair in the sense that walking and biking being banned on the freeway is unfair: it’s actually just what’s suited to the transportation mode. A walk/bike cut through is a cheap, easy thing to slot in, much more so than the car equivalent. Car speed relies on being given far more total space and money than other modes. Remove those advantages, and car utility would sink, while the utility of walking and biking would rise dramatically. Especially if zoning was loosened to allow — not force the way things are forced to the car’s advantage now, but simply allowed — higher density and mixed use areas. Or consider an indoor mall vs a strip mall. One uses cars more heavily, one uses walking. Which one is more efficient to visit and browse stores? The thing about car dominant spaces is that they force things to spread out, which reduces efficiency. That efficiency reduction is then ‘solved’ with the same thing that caused it: with cars. Which works out okay for cars, but everything else works horribly in that context, which is why US cities usually have extreme car dominance, with other options being hilariously ineffective. And some people cheer on this lack of choices, even as their waistlines expand and government budgets explode.

ragebol 5y ago

Point is that stroads don't give you that fast travel, because of all the traffic that needs getting in and off. The alternative of having a dedicated through-travel road with streets on the sides to access actual destinations does allow both fast travel and easy access to destinations.

Scott_Sanderson 5y ago

You should check out the NJB you tube links. Stroads aren't fast for car travel. If you want a fast road, design for that. Stroad design gives you the worst of both worlds: slow and terrible for anything other than driving/parking.

throwawaysea 5y ago
I've seen these videos (they've been repeatedly brought up in other similar discussions), and I just am not convinced. It doesn't match my reality across several cities and states, where "stroads" seem totally fine and functional.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

> The reason people like high speed roads is that it saves time, and time matters. Biking and public transit are both slow compared to cars *Cities build streets primarily around cars* You: Look! Cars are more convenient!! This isn't some iron law of the universe, that cars are faster even for basic errands happens because we choose to make it that way. When I was living on the outskirts of Munich, many short trips to grocery stores and the like would take a similar amount of time for biking and driving, because they design their streets and roads for cars AND bikes AND walking, not mainly just cars like in the US.

throwawaysea 5y ago
I keep hearing this line about how cars are faster because cities 'choose' to make it that way. This isn't a convincing argument to me. Cars are fundamentally a faster mode of transportation. Just like walking cannot realize a maximum speed similar to bicycles, neither walking nor biking can realize a maximum speed similar to cars (at least safely). Driving is faster, first and foremost, because cars are faster and not because cities are making other modes slower. The faster travel times that cars unlock is a massive boost to quality of life that many, many people enjoy and take advantage of. That inherent value is why people are willing to pay taxes to fund roads for cars, and why cities have developed road infrastructure. It's not some kind of conspiracy theory to bring down bikes - the reality is that bikes are simply slower and there isn't some deeper level of insight beyond that.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  No, this is incorrect. High speed trains and planes both have a higher top speed than cars. Does that mean trains and planes are by default a faster way to get around for all trips? No, of course not. How infrastructure is built around them matters just as much. Obviously there are trips in which they are indeed faster than cars, but plenty too where they’re impractical, or slower. Cars have a higher top speed than bikes, sure, but they also demand far more space. Given equal space between cars and bikes, bikes will often end up fastest for trips under a mile or two — simply because drivers are more likely to get stuck in traffic. Especially since it’s easy to have walk bike cut-throughs. Which, I know, you’ll object to as unfair, but it’s unfair in the sense that walking and biking being banned on the freeway is unfair: it’s actually just what’s suited to the transportation mode. A walk/bike cut through is a cheap, easy thing to slot in, much more so than the car equivalent. Car speed relies on being given far more total space and money than other modes. Remove those advantages, and car utility would sink, while the utility of walking and biking would rise dramatically. Especially if zoning was loosened to allow — not force the way things are forced to the car’s advantage now, but simply allowed — higher density and mixed use areas. Or consider an indoor mall vs a strip mall. One uses cars more heavily, one uses walking. Which one is more efficient to visit and browse stores? The thing about car dominant spaces is that they force things to spread out, which reduces efficiency. That efficiency reduction is then ‘solved’ with the same thing that caused it: with cars. Which works out okay for cars, but everything else works horribly in that context, which is why US cities usually have extreme car dominance, with other options being hilariously ineffective. And some people cheer on this lack of choices, even as their waistlines expand and government budgets explode.