>>1968076Wait, I hate stroads, but I would not call *that* pic a stroad. Or, at least not based on the evidence presented.
For me, the main definition of a stroad is:
>high vehicle speeds (50 km/h or greater)>but for some retarded reason, permanent impediments to vehicle flow>(examples being on-street parking, curb cuts for vehicles entering/exiting private property, or unsignalized left turns)It's a contradiction in purposes. If you are trying to move vehicles quickly and efficiently, then you should not have very obvious, permanent impediments to vehicle flow.
And if you are going to have these "amenities" on a right-of-way, the speed of the right-of-way should be reduced so that, well, it's actually fucking safe for vehicles to be entering and exiting the roadway. Because it is dangerous for drivers to be pulling out of parking lots into traffic going 60 km/h, or trying to make left turns against oncoming traffic going that fast.
And if drivers are forced to navigate situations that are potentially dangerous to themselves, their brains go into "survival mode" and hyper-fixate on the danger to them, causing them to completely ignore the dangers to others. Like all those drivers, trying to pull out of a parking lot into traffic going 60 km/h, they are going to be looking at that traffic coming at them, and completely ignore the pedestrian or cyclist (assuming bi-directional, separated cycling path) coming from the opposite direction as traffic.
The problem with this "stroad" debate is all these urbanists are convinced the answer is "a stroad should have the vehicle speeds and volumes killed."
But sometimes the answer is "a stroad should have the impediments to vehicle flow killed."
But that answer is hard, because it means radically changing the land use that fronts onto that stroad. A fast food drive-through with curb cuts to enter and exit the roadway? Well, how can that exist if you are removing the curb cuts.
