5 ms·

it's the other way around. Grids are made for cars. And buses, trucks (garbage trucks too), semis. They are ok at moving vehicles from houses to the highway, b

it's the other way around. Grids are made for cars. And buses, trucks (garbage trucks too), semis. They are ok at moving vehicles from houses to the highway, but you can walk them too. Non-grids are for people and (few) cars. They are intentionally designed to discourage non-residents from driving through them. They optimize for selling the maximum amount of land and delivering the minimum conveniently drivable surface so other people don't drive near your house but you can go drive through theirs.

bobthepanda 4y ago
I would disagree. Grids are bad for cars because four way stops are really inefficient at processing them. You'll notice in American suburban planning that there are as few four-way stops as possible inside a subdivision. Non-grids extend the distance of a lot of trips and are thus hostile to slower non-motorized users. Driving an extra 500m is not a big deal for a car but is an additional several minutes for slower users. And non-grids in the US funnel onto very big roads with few crosswalks, so that's even more diversion distance; and then on top of that it can easily take a few minutes to even get a walk/cycle signal at an intersection. In contrast it's very easy to make a grid less hospitable to cars but also still allow pedestrians and cyclists to take the shortest path; just lay bollards diagonally across an four-way intersection that are too narrow for vehicles but large enough for bikes and people.
- gpvos 4y ago
  Four-way stops are yet another American pessimization. You won't find them in any European country.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Not sure why. In low traffic situations in both directions, it seems it's probably safer to have everyone to have everyone stop rather than have traffic in one direction blast through.
    - jamiek88 4y ago
      We generally have mini roundabouts for that situation or give way signs for rolling stops.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        Mini-roundabouts are way overkill for a lot of situations and 4 way stops are often effectively rolling stops anyway in my experience.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      At least in subdivisions in the US, you'll often see more three-way stops than four-way stops.
    - citrin_ru 4y ago
      If it is a residential area (low traffic and speed) I see no problem with cars on lower traffic street have to stop and yield and on another go without a stop (but within the speed limit).
  - ojhughes 4y ago
    You will find traffic light hell in many euro cities however.
- JetSetWilly 4y ago
  > Non-grids extend the distance of a lot of trips and are thus hostile to slower non-motorized users. Driving an extra 500m is not a big deal for a car but is an additional several minutes for slower users. I don't believe this is true. In fact iirc it has been proven that if you chose any random two points in a non-grid set up (eg, something like London) then the distance by road you have to travel is on average less than it would be in a grid. This makes intutive sense to me - a grid always means you must travel the entire length of the "opposite and the adjacent" but in a non-grid you can typically find a route that's a bit closer to the hypotenuse and better optimised. So non-grids are particularly better for non-car users as they reduce distance travelled. As well as that - travel is not typically between entirely random points on a map. In a non-grid roads tend to be optimised after their usage and not historically "planned" so you'll have lots of roads that directly go between areas of major popularity fairly directly. I find grids to be an inhuman layer forced over a city. They make journeys take longer, they even make car journeys worse because of the endless intersections. The main advantage they used to have (easier navigation when you are a newbie in a city) seems to be made redundant by GPS these days.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Grids are certainly better than what I was more referring to, and what is discussed in the article, which is the modernist suburban tree-like structure. London is not on one fixed grid, but there are certainly grid-like things in many areas, for the simple reasons that * above 4 ways at an intersection tends to be really poor throughput * people like right or almost right angles for building construction, and that tends to be reflected in lot lines; acute angles are quite bad
- bernawil 4y ago
  > four-way stops are really inefficient at processing them This is a non-issue. Where I'm from, grid neighbourhoods are the norm and stop signs are not a thing. First, the grid spreads out traffic inside it. Then, you're supposed to drive at around 35 km/h. Last, narrower/streets with more traffic tend to be one way. Most of the driving takes place at arteries, still part of the grid. Those have semaphores. Also, grids add A TON of public street parking. Get off your arterial road close to your destination and into the neighbourhood and look for parking. That also means there's street and sidewalk space for bus stops and space for laying out utilities (electric, water and sewers). What I'm trying to say is that grids are meant for cars among all the other things. The thing about non-grids is they are upscale: less public surface means bigger lots and worse transportation means leans non-residents around.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    non-grids can have all of those things as well. American suburban streets are certainly wide enough for street-parking but a lot of them don't allow it for reasons. America is also a country in which road engineers will spend hundreds of millions of dollars eliminating mere seconds at a single intersection. In that context, a four way stop is "inefficient" or dangerous and as many internal intersections as possible in non-grids are just three way T's.
    - bernawil 4y ago
      Grids have more parking because there's more streets and therefore more curb, it's not a matter of width. Also getting off the arterial road and into the grid neighbourhood looking for parking is more feasible because in a non-grid you have to track back your steps all the distance you traveled back to your destination, while in a grid it's way more likely there's a shorter path back through the grid. > streets are certainly wide enough for street-parking but a lot of them don't allow it for reasons. If I had to guess, because they're hostile to non-residents and they are optimizing for residential property values. Grids with free parking are welcoming to non-residents and optimizing for business revenue.
akgerber 4y ago
Grids are not made for cars. Grids are made for the legibility of a centralized administration and ease of property subdivision. They are common features of Roman and Greek colonial cities as well as Chinese cities unto time immemorial (in all cases, only in locations where topography allowed): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_plan#Ancient_grid_plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_plan#Ancient_grid_plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_urban_planning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_urban_planning

bobthepanda 4y ago

I would disagree. Grids are bad for cars because four way stops are really inefficient at processing them. You'll notice in American suburban planning that there are as few four-way stops as possible inside a subdivision. Non-grids extend the distance of a lot of trips and are thus hostile to slower non-motorized users. Driving an extra 500m is not a big deal for a car but is an additional several minutes for slower users. And non-grids in the US funnel onto very big roads with few crosswalks, so that's even more diversion distance; and then on top of that it can easily take a few minutes to even get a walk/cycle signal at an intersection. In contrast it's very easy to make a grid less hospitable to cars but also still allow pedestrians and cyclists to take the shortest path; just lay bollards diagonally across an four-way intersection that are too narrow for vehicles but large enough for bikes and people.

gpvos 4y ago
Four-way stops are yet another American pessimization. You won't find them in any European country.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Not sure why. In low traffic situations in both directions, it seems it's probably safer to have everyone to have everyone stop rather than have traffic in one direction blast through.
  - jamiek88 4y ago
    We generally have mini roundabouts for that situation or give way signs for rolling stops.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Mini-roundabouts are way overkill for a lot of situations and 4 way stops are often effectively rolling stops anyway in my experience.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    At least in subdivisions in the US, you'll often see more three-way stops than four-way stops.
  - citrin_ru 4y ago
    If it is a residential area (low traffic and speed) I see no problem with cars on lower traffic street have to stop and yield and on another go without a stop (but within the speed limit).
- ojhughes 4y ago
  You will find traffic light hell in many euro cities however.
JetSetWilly 4y ago
> Non-grids extend the distance of a lot of trips and are thus hostile to slower non-motorized users. Driving an extra 500m is not a big deal for a car but is an additional several minutes for slower users. I don't believe this is true. In fact iirc it has been proven that if you chose any random two points in a non-grid set up (eg, something like London) then the distance by road you have to travel is on average less than it would be in a grid. This makes intutive sense to me - a grid always means you must travel the entire length of the "opposite and the adjacent" but in a non-grid you can typically find a route that's a bit closer to the hypotenuse and better optimised. So non-grids are particularly better for non-car users as they reduce distance travelled. As well as that - travel is not typically between entirely random points on a map. In a non-grid roads tend to be optimised after their usage and not historically "planned" so you'll have lots of roads that directly go between areas of major popularity fairly directly. I find grids to be an inhuman layer forced over a city. They make journeys take longer, they even make car journeys worse because of the endless intersections. The main advantage they used to have (easier navigation when you are a newbie in a city) seems to be made redundant by GPS these days.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Grids are certainly better than what I was more referring to, and what is discussed in the article, which is the modernist suburban tree-like structure. London is not on one fixed grid, but there are certainly grid-like things in many areas, for the simple reasons that * above 4 ways at an intersection tends to be really poor throughput * people like right or almost right angles for building construction, and that tends to be reflected in lot lines; acute angles are quite bad
bernawil 4y ago
> four-way stops are really inefficient at processing them This is a non-issue. Where I'm from, grid neighbourhoods are the norm and stop signs are not a thing. First, the grid spreads out traffic inside it. Then, you're supposed to drive at around 35 km/h. Last, narrower/streets with more traffic tend to be one way. Most of the driving takes place at arteries, still part of the grid. Those have semaphores. Also, grids add A TON of public street parking. Get off your arterial road close to your destination and into the neighbourhood and look for parking. That also means there's street and sidewalk space for bus stops and space for laying out utilities (electric, water and sewers). What I'm trying to say is that grids are meant for cars among all the other things. The thing about non-grids is they are upscale: less public surface means bigger lots and worse transportation means leans non-residents around.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  non-grids can have all of those things as well. American suburban streets are certainly wide enough for street-parking but a lot of them don't allow it for reasons. America is also a country in which road engineers will spend hundreds of millions of dollars eliminating mere seconds at a single intersection. In that context, a four way stop is "inefficient" or dangerous and as many internal intersections as possible in non-grids are just three way T's.
  - bernawil 4y ago
    Grids have more parking because there's more streets and therefore more curb, it's not a matter of width. Also getting off the arterial road and into the grid neighbourhood looking for parking is more feasible because in a non-grid you have to track back your steps all the distance you traveled back to your destination, while in a grid it's way more likely there's a shorter path back through the grid. > streets are certainly wide enough for street-parking but a lot of them don't allow it for reasons. If I had to guess, because they're hostile to non-residents and they are optimizing for residential property values. Grids with free parking are welcoming to non-residents and optimizing for business revenue.

akgerber 4y ago

Grids are not made for cars. Grids are made for the legibility of a centralized administration and ease of property subdivision. They are common features of Roman and Greek colonial cities as well as Chinese cities unto time immemorial (in all cases, only in locations where topography allowed): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_plan#Ancient_grid_plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_plan#Ancient_grid_plans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_urban_planning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Chinese_urban_planning