> 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 a

> 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.