3 ms·

Stroads are bad for cars too (not just pedestrians and bicyclists). That's the argument against stroads. Roads are good and streets are good but stroads is the

Stroads are bad for cars too (not just pedestrians and bicyclists). That's the argument against stroads. Roads are good and streets are good but stroads is the worse of both with the benefits of none.

cyberax 3y ago
No. Roads with turn lanes are _flexible_, they allow fast arterial flow, with easy turns. This allows far more variation in design than just high-speed roads and slow local roads. Moreover, removing "stroads" does NOT reduce fatalities! Boston's accident rate went up from 16 vehicular deaths in 2016 (before they drank the KoolAid) to 26 this year. The attacks on surface roads by groups with an agenda (push people into dense cities) is predictable. They want traffic to become untenable, so they just lie and insinuate.
- Boltgolt 3y ago
  Interesting, so you don't think that separating different kinds of traffic (through traffic and local traffic) would inheritly also be better for car drivers?
  - cyberax 3y ago
    The whole thing with "stroads" is that they allow to seamlessly transition between these modes. You can't have the left turns on a regular road, so you either need multi-level interchanges (that take too much space), or you need to force drivers to make right turns and circle around. The latter _can_ be a solution for some roads, but it necessarily lengthens the trip and significantly increases its time because you have to make 3 right turns instead of one left turn.
    - alkonaut 3y ago
      Roundabouts don’t take as much space as multi level intersections. It’s the best solutions in many cases.
- Skeime 3y ago
  Yeah, and there are absolutely no people with an agenda to make cars a necessity. I mean, who would that be? It would need to be a huge industry that makes its profit from selling cars to people. I can’t think of any such industry. /s Sure, hyper-dense cities are not ideal, but neither are spread-out asphalt wastelands where cars are the only means of getting around. This is terrible for anyone who can’t drive (children, people with impaired vision, people who can’t afford cars). I have also lived in Houston (without a car) and I found getting around absolutely miserable. Even when I had friends pick me up with their cars, the distances were huge and a lot of the time, this would be because of parking lots creating gigantic empty space everywhere. (At least, this was my impression.)
  - cyberax 3y ago
    > Sure, hyper-dense cities are not ideal, but neither are spread-out asphalt wastelands where cars are the only means of getting around. This is terrible for anyone who can’t drive This is the only rational argument against cars. I especially want children to have more autonomy. Yet it'll be far better solved by self-driving vehicles. They already exist, and they work.
    - Skeime 3y ago
      The only rational argument? Cars are also dangerous for their surroundings and their passengers. In addition, individual cars are an environmental disaster, in terms of noise, air pollution, climate, and use of natural resources. Finally, I believe (admittedly without having a source at hand) that not using a car is beneficial to one’s health because modern humans move their body way too little — biking or walking, even just to the next bus stop, are much better (but of course, this last part is ultimately a private decision).
    - emodendroket 3y ago
      None of the claims in the last paragraph are true. Self-driving vehicles still have serious limitations, especially in the city context we’re talking about, and children aren’t going to have their own cars.

cyberax 3y ago

No. Roads with turn lanes are _flexible_, they allow fast arterial flow, with easy turns. This allows far more variation in design than just high-speed roads and slow local roads. Moreover, removing "stroads" does NOT reduce fatalities! Boston's accident rate went up from 16 vehicular deaths in 2016 (before they drank the KoolAid) to 26 this year. The attacks on surface roads by groups with an agenda (push people into dense cities) is predictable. They want traffic to become untenable, so they just lie and insinuate.

Boltgolt 3y ago
Interesting, so you don't think that separating different kinds of traffic (through traffic and local traffic) would inheritly also be better for car drivers?
- cyberax 3y ago
  The whole thing with "stroads" is that they allow to seamlessly transition between these modes. You can't have the left turns on a regular road, so you either need multi-level interchanges (that take too much space), or you need to force drivers to make right turns and circle around. The latter _can_ be a solution for some roads, but it necessarily lengthens the trip and significantly increases its time because you have to make 3 right turns instead of one left turn.
  - alkonaut 3y ago
    Roundabouts don’t take as much space as multi level intersections. It’s the best solutions in many cases.
Skeime 3y ago
Yeah, and there are absolutely no people with an agenda to make cars a necessity. I mean, who would that be? It would need to be a huge industry that makes its profit from selling cars to people. I can’t think of any such industry. /s Sure, hyper-dense cities are not ideal, but neither are spread-out asphalt wastelands where cars are the only means of getting around. This is terrible for anyone who can’t drive (children, people with impaired vision, people who can’t afford cars). I have also lived in Houston (without a car) and I found getting around absolutely miserable. Even when I had friends pick me up with their cars, the distances were huge and a lot of the time, this would be because of parking lots creating gigantic empty space everywhere. (At least, this was my impression.)
- cyberax 3y ago
  > Sure, hyper-dense cities are not ideal, but neither are spread-out asphalt wastelands where cars are the only means of getting around. This is terrible for anyone who can’t drive This is the only rational argument against cars. I especially want children to have more autonomy. Yet it'll be far better solved by self-driving vehicles. They already exist, and they work.
  - Skeime 3y ago
    The only rational argument? Cars are also dangerous for their surroundings and their passengers. In addition, individual cars are an environmental disaster, in terms of noise, air pollution, climate, and use of natural resources. Finally, I believe (admittedly without having a source at hand) that not using a car is beneficial to one’s health because modern humans move their body way too little — biking or walking, even just to the next bus stop, are much better (but of course, this last part is ultimately a private decision).
  - emodendroket 3y ago
    None of the claims in the last paragraph are true. Self-driving vehicles still have serious limitations, especially in the city context we’re talking about, and children aren’t going to have their own cars.