3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.