
Stroads and Strails - jseliger
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/03/19/stroads-and-strails/
======
nwah1
Livable streets, which are a joy to walk down, are essential. And the author
of this piece is correct that you can't just use a top-down plan to segregate
roads and streets.

It seems to me that the key is to find ways to make automobiles less mandatory
in general. So instead of needing two or three lanes for automobiles in each
direction, you only need one. And, ideally, a reduction in the need for
curbside parking.

This can be accomplished through tax policies, zoning, and ordinances that
promote walkability and transit-oriented development. Shift taxes off
buildings and onto land value. Allow mixed-use development. End mandatory
minimum parking requirements. Implement congestion pricing and smart parking
meters. Use pigouvian penalties for pollution, in proportion to the harm
caused.

All of those could be implemented without requiring top-down planning or
accumulating more municipal debts.

I'm all for spending money on parks, libraries, bike trails, and public
transit, but you can't just drop those into a community where all the economic
incentives incline us towards the McLifestyle with big box stores, strip
malls, and drive-thru.

~~~
Theodores
The dreaded electric car is the answer.

When you look at busy streets where all of the houses have turned their backs
on the noise, pollution and general filth that comes with regular traffic
think how different it would be if every one of those vehicles 'sat in
traffic' and inching forward was an electric vehicle.

People could have clean windows and open their front doors to the street. They
could even grow a few plants. Crossing the road even in solid traffic would be
safer just because you could hear.

If individual communities could vote if their street was electric only then
there would be an incentive for people to get their street essentially car
free. Imaginably the lamp posts would be charging points too.

Streets designed a century or more ago and where community once thrived would
come back to life. House price values would be vastly more for 'electric'
streets just because the standard of living is better. So you could buy an
electric car and offset that against the higher valuation of the house -
assuming you are owning and not renting.

As for old fashioned cars blazing through and creating pollution, there are
license plate reading cameras and fines. As for the folks from the countryside
that still have their old ICE vehicle, they just have to park a street or two
away when visiting their friends on 'electric' streets. This will obviously
stress out the parking in neighbouring streets incentivising them to go
electric too. Eventually everyone can have a livable street even if there is
lots of slow moving traffic moving at a snails pace. It just won't be noisy
traffic with killer fumes.

~~~
soperj
Electric cars still make noise.

~~~
ghaff
Especially when the hypothetically self-driving ones are all tooling around
the block 20 times because there's nowhere to park.

~~~
nwah1
That's why I mentioned smart parking meters. They would set prices so that
there's always spots available for those willing to pay more. The end result
being less congestion and shorter commuting times for everyone, by avoiding
the need to circle the block.

------
allknowingfrog
I read Jane Jacobs in grad school (surprisingly relevant even after five
decades), and I think she would question whether all of that traffic needs to
exist in the first place. The article mentions "micromanaged" zoning in North
America, one element of which seems to be that no residential window should
ever face a commercial enterprise. Allowing small shops and restaurants to
exist within residential areas (as they do in Europe and elsewhere) would
eliminate some amount of the car traffic we current accept as normal. When
every destination requires a car, every street becomes a stroad.

~~~
ghaff
I think that's a fair assessment of Jane Jacobs' view. At the same time, a lot
of people read Jacobs somewhat selectively. She may not have wanted multi-lane
traffic to go through Washington Square Park and [have wanted] mixed-use
organic growth. However, she was also in general very much not in favor of
bulldozing swaths of low-rise housing to build large apartment blocks as many
seem to feel is the antidote to high housing prices in the city of their
choice.

ADDED: I expect a lot of folks here would absolutely characterize Jabobs as a
NIMBY in a lot of ways given that I think it's fair to say she was far more
concerned with the livability of cities for their residents than enabling a
large population influx.

~~~
the_gastropod
Low-rise housing isn't really _the_ problem. Take Barcelona, for example,
which has nearly twice the population density as New York City—the U.S.'s
densest city. Barcelona does have high-rises, but much of its density can be
attributed to its narrow streets.

So, while bulldozing low-rise buildings in poor neighborhoods to build
highrise apartment buildings would increase density, it's a very costly and
inequitable way of doing it, especially when SO much area of NYC (and all U.S.
cities) is designated exclusively for personal automobiles.

~~~
Steltek
Highrise apartments ("bulk housing") is the obvious outcome of where
ridiculous zoning has taken us. If cities were allowed to organically build
upwards in duplexes and triplexes, we'd have naturally higher density/capacity
without the need for adrenaline shots of highrise apartment buildings.

~~~
ghaff
>If cities were allowed to organically build upwards

Zoning is no doubt sometimes the issue. But there's a lot of evidence that,
given availability of land at the time of initial construction, the organic
behavior tends toward detached single-family homes and duplexes.

~~~
bluGill
initial construction is not an end state though. Towns change over time. Some
locations are desirable and rich will always keep them like that because they
are willing to pay for it. Some locations become less desirable and the rich
move out leaving a poorer class to move in, this class is willing for an
apartment because it is cheaper for them.

~~~
ghaff
>Towns change over time.

Indeed, they do. And I'm not defending all resistance to zoning changes, etc.
But, if you have a large swath of 1-2 story housing, even in the absence of
significant zoning and permitting restrictions, it's probably going to be a
very slow process for that to densify into 3-5 story housing organically.

------
sammypants
The same approach would be useful for dealing with the ubiquitous electric
scooters. The real danger of them lies not within the technology (or their
use) itself, but in infrastructure that was designed to support cars instead.

~~~
CaptainZapp
Well, after Lime had to recall their scooters from the Swiss market due to
their nasty habit of spontaneously engaging their front brakes while in full
swing I, for one, wouldn't be so sure.

Edit: spello

------
Invictus0
I wonder if the author has ever tried to walk across a stroad. It is a
horrible experience: 5 lanes of traffic with no crosswalks or traffic lights.
Left turns over 4 lanes are similarly irksome. There is no need for this
apologism for stroads: certainly the author is not arguing we build more of
them. He says something has to give: let it be the cars.

------
cgriswald
> Bicyclists prefer riding on major streets as well, which is why Copenhagen
> prioritizes bike infrastructure on major streets rather than on side streets
> – on side streets car traffic is so light and slow that mixed traffic is not
> so bad, but the desirable through-routes remain the major streets.

I've never really understood the appeal of major roads for bicyclsts. I much
prefer sidestreets when bicycling and don't mind cutting over a block to have
to deal with less traffic. I think this demand along with a general blowback
against cars due to American culture treating non-vehicle traffic as second
class leads to bad outcomes.

In my town, a six-lane arterial connects neighborhoods with a major N-S
arterial, downtown, and past downtown is a US highway. The town has taken that
six lane road and turned it into a two lane road with center turn lane,
bicycle lanes, and parking. What should be a 40+ mph speed limit is now a 25
mph speed limit.

This has bad outcomes for drivers and bicyclists.

Effectively, from the perspective of a driver, this road is now equivalent to
any of a dozen parallel roads: single lane in each direction and 25 mph. This
disincentivizes drivers from cutting over to the arterial, effectively
spreading out the traffic onto parallel roads (many of which lack traffic
lights when they hit the major N-S artery). However, it remains the busiest
road for vehicle traffic, and because it is so wide, speed significantly
faster than 25 mph _feel_ safe, so speed variance can be higher, with traffic
typically traveling between 20-40 mph. It's particularly sketchy for traffic
turning on from side streets. Drivers expect traffic to be going the posted 25
mph, but are sometimes surprised by the person going 40 mph. So, drivers
generally get where they are going more slowly, but at increased danger due to
increase in speed variance.

But it also increases danger for bicyclists in two ways. First, it encourages
the bicyclists to use the still relatively busy arterial. It's not clear why
anyone would want to incentivize this. For a bicyclist, any of the parallel
streets were already attractive options and would get the bicyclist where he
was going. Second, because of the changed incentives, those parallel roads are
now busier than before (making the bicycle lane on the busier road more
attractive). Whatever a bicyclist decides, there is an increase in
vehicle/bicycle interactions.

A much better solution would have been to keep the arterial an arterial and
make dedicated bicycle lanes on some of the parallel roads. This would
encourage a separation of vehicle and bycicle traffic that wouldn't really
inconvenience either one of them.

~~~
jacobolus
> _In my town, a six-lane arterial connects neighborhoods with a major N-S
> arterial, downtown, and past downtown is a US highway. The town has taken
> that six lane road and turned it into a two lane road with center turn lane,
> bicycle lanes, and parking. What should be a 40+ mph speed limit is now a 25
> mph speed limit._

This is a description of a heavily car-oriented urban plan.

Ideally no urban street should have 40+ mph driving; it’s grossly unsafe for
pedestrians/cyclists. Save those speeds for the highway. In my opinion cities
should not have 6 lane streets. Such wide bands of pavement break up the
neighborhood and are very unfriendly to everything but cars. Unfortunately,
once you have built your city on such a plan with a 100 foot gap between
buildings, figuring out what better to do with the space gets tricky.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Ideally no urban street should have 40+ mph driving; it’s grossly unsafe.
> Save those speeds for the highway.

A six lane, 40+ mph urban arterial street is a (significant) highway, though
it may not be a controlled-access freeway (in practice, they have _more_
controlled access than less significant urban streets, though often less than
freeways, which also have higher speed limits; it's a continuum.)

~~~
jacobolus
Yes, and we shouldn’t put at-grade highways through the middle of city
neighborhoods with housing/small businesses/etc. along the sides, no grade-
separated pedestrian crossings, etc.

I grew up in Southern CA, and the way cities there are crisscrossed by super-
wide 6-lane roads (and every destination is surrounded by parking lots) is
very disruptive to anything but a car-dominated lifestyle/culture. In many
cities people almost exclusively travel by car, even though the weather is
pleasant throughout the year. As a consequence lives are heavily scheduled and
people spend little time talking to their neighbors.

I also spent significant time growing up in a colonial city in southern
Mexico, designed around narrow streets with little available parking. The
cultural difference was stark: in the Mexican city people walked everywhere
and it was impossible to go anywhere without running into multiple friends in
the street.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Yes, and we shouldn’t put at-grade highways through the middle of city
> neighborhoods

We generally don't. Arterial roads—what was being discussed—are typically
between neighborhoods forming a widely-spaced network, from which a dense
network of smaller roads branch off which are the roads “through the middle of
city neighborhoods”.

That's what the word “arterial” means.

------
benj111
This just made me think of shopping centres (malls), you have a pedestrianised
area surrounded by roads (and car parking).

I'm not suggesting that they're the solution, but a symptom, and evidence of
demand for shopping without having to dodge cars.

------
icebraining
An avenue is not a stroad; while it can have multiple lanes and less of an
expectation of mixed use of the asphalt than a residential street, it's not
designed for high speeds, and will often contain many speed-inhibition
mechanisms (crossroads, traffic lights, curves, etc).

A good approach is to split the lanes - instead of 3+3 as in a high-speed
road, they have 2+2 in the middle for thru-traffic, sandwiched by strip of
sidewalk, plus another lane on each side for local traffic, and finally
another sidewalk next to the buildings.

~~~
del82
Queens Boulevard[0] is like that, with through-traffic lanes and local lanes
divided by a barrier, and it's very much not a pleasant experience to walk or
bike near it. It's just so wide, loud, and dangerous[1], though there have
been some recent fixes to improve safety.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_Boulevard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_Boulevard)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_Boulevard#Safety_issues...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens_Boulevard#Safety_issues_and_improvements)

~~~
freditup
A large stretch of Queens Boulevard has a bike lane alongside of its local
lanes now. I just biked the length of it the other day, it's actually quite a
pleasant urban biking experience in terms of safety (though not in terms of
scenery). The lane is wide, separated from traffic, and the intersections with
cars are sensibly designed[0].

(In the map view below, the bike lane is the green lane, where the tan painted
area is designated for pedestrians. But almost no pedestrians are going to be
walking parallel with the road between the local and through lanes. And if
they are, they're likely going to be on the actual median instead of in the
painted area. So it's safe to bike in the tan paint, and leave the entire
green bike lane as a buffer area. This may sound disrespectful to pedestrians,
but when I biked the entire length of the bike lane the other day, I didn't
see a single pedestrian walking in this area or even on the median.)

[0]:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7389203,-73.8891268,64m/data...](https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7389203,-73.8891268,64m/data=!3m1!1e3!5m1!1e3)

------
Doctor_Fegg
Interesting piece. I'd quibble with one point though:

> The same situation occurs on railroads: all uses want the same piece of
> infrastructure, leading to the usual problems of mixing trains of different
> speed classes on the same tracks. Freight bypasses are possible, but
> passenger bypasses are rare

France has built thousands of miles of what are effectively passenger
bypasses: their LGVs (Lignes a Grand Vitesse).

------
twelvechairs
The fundamental failing is that the ownership of 'stroads' (including those in
city centres) is typically with a government entity that is charged almost
solely with vehicular traffic concerns.

The design solutions are there and obvious for prioritising pedestrians,
cyclists, etc. But its impossible to enact these when road authorities are
separate to planning authorities. The overarching solution is a structural
change in governing these spaces.

------
carapace
I think ideally you would have at least three separate but interconnected
ground transport networks: one for pedestrians, one for bikes, and one for
motor vehicles.

------
niftich
I think this piece takes too long to arrive at a underwhelming point,
seemingly that prime transportation and activity corridors all want to co-
locate because of interrelated and natural, rational reasons. This finding
isn't obvious but is easily revealed, and though it's worth talking about,
there's deeper insights if we continue the examination further.

Early road bypasses failed precisely because of the lack of development
restrictions: they increased traffic and cheap land value drew businesses
seeking to capitalize on it, so now the bypasses of yesteryear are of the
urban fabric. The classic way to armor against this is to make the roadway
limited access, and then you have development concentrating only at
intersection nodes. Or the jurisdictions at play can always place additional
restrictions on development.

But underneath all the SimCity we can play with roads and zoning, the
transportation geography will always remain constrained to edges and nodes,
corridors and chokepoints. It's these chokepoints that truly define the way
people will get around, because getting to a point beyond them will require
crossing it, and there's only ever a handful of time-effective paths to take
between you and it. Bridges and mountain passes are the obvious chokepoints,
but in a car-oriented world so are motorway interchanges and meetings of big
arterials. Much criticism is levelled at US suburban development where single-
family homes are plopped onto winding streets that only discharge to big
avenues at subdivision entrances, so everyone has to take the big roads to get
anywhere, but most European cities aren't that different: the lesser streets
aren't passable at a pace that motorists have come to expect, and rarely does
an uninterrupted network of them exist to get into a different part of the
city using only small streets. Although the planning forces, commercial
forces, and histories are different, they both arrive at the same result, of
cars being channeled to a small number of higher-capacity paths, instead of
distributed more evenly throughout.

There's cities that have leveraged the grid to great effect to arrive at a
less crushing result. Las Vegas is a good example: attractions are located
along a narrow corridor with heavy traffic that locals have learned to avoid.
The rest of the urban area forms a large grid with dozens of avenues at
regular intervals, and amenities and retail are sprinkled among housing. You
have many options of traversing the urban area from one side to another.

There's other urbanized areas that have the same basic form, but they're
imbalanced by a nearby node that draws traffic and upsets the network. Plano,
TX looks really similar, but is a surburb to much larger Dallas. Other times,
there's far too little commercial in a sea of residential, like much of South
Florida or Inland Empire or Oklahoma City, or the desired directions of travel
don't match the grid, like in Orange County, CA. Sometimes the grid is limited
by natural obstructions that create chokepoints, significantly impairing the
utility of the grid, like in Seattle, Minneapolis, or the connections of
Manhattan to elsewhere.

One of the goals of railroads, motorways, subways, etc. is to "warp" and cheat
the natural network and create connections among nodes that previously didn't
exist, or weren't even nodes. This requires clever and thoughtful design that
goes beyond simply putting transit along every avenue, or putting in more
lanes.

