It is time for you to think carefully about the rationale of limited access roads, local roads and what you called “complete streets” during a series of discussions – not just in the U.S., of course. But it also has to be dscussed in different parts of the world, too. Do you really understand what I am trying to say specifically?

Let the experts and other people challenge you to debate on your own viewpoints regarding the these types of roads. Tell them that you can specify two of those conditions you wrote above if you will, and the experts will discuss with you on the merits of limited-access roads, local arterial roads, city streets (or “complete streets” if you will), etc.

Finally, please discuss about design features like, for example, narrower roadbeds (which, I think, too narrow for large, wide-size vehicles), adequate sidewalks (that is so good to be true, I think), lanes for bicycles (can you really see this anywhere?), etc. on your own merits with other people. And don’t forget to dicuss about enforcement, maintenance, lanscaping and other aspects which I suspect they contribute to what I call “streets and avenues of fairness”.

Do what you want to do in such different ways, so as not to force upon anywhere else. Go and see outside if you have to and please tell others about what you experience with. This is part of a learning experience in reality.

As for ordinary people like me around the globe, we must be careful with the claims that risk aversion is good for fairness. And that is not all: smart growth is part of hidden agenda behind the contempt for economic growth, standards of living, etc. Say, are you really listening about this phenomenon?

From JPK

marketurbanism.com will explain to you about the distinction between local thoroughfares and limited access highways.
The website will also explain to you about rights-of-way and more.

Mr. Hemric, please be careful with what you are saying about such distinctions because it is no laughing matter about growth fetishism in the transportation sector. This can arouse misunderstanding about the philosopical & ideological phenomenon which is actually a justification for incoherently present and future policies.

Thank you very much.

Fr: J.P.K.

yeah, I would make the same distinction that Benjamin did. Limited-access roads should really have a funding mechanism that resembles the free market, but local roads (if they are done well) could serve enough public purposes that it becomes too hard to tease apart the various benefits and assign costs accordingly. I would just specify a couple of conditions (that I think were implied anyway):

1. The local roads should be sufficiently connected. (grids allow for a better flow)
2. Need to be complete streets. Through design features, try to avoid any kind of modal bias. This would probably mean narrower roadbeds and adequate sidewalks, maybe bike lanes for a busier street.

yeah, I would make the same distinction that Benjamin did. Limited-access roads should really have a funding mechanism that resembles the free market, but local roads (if they are done well) could serve enough public purposes that it becomes too hard to tease apart the various benefits and assign costs accordingly. I would just specify a couple of conditions (that I think were implied anyway):

1. The local roads should be sufficiently connected. (grids allow for a better flow)
2. Need to be complete streets. Through design features, try to avoid any kind of modal bias. This would probably mean narrower roadbeds and adequate sidewalks, maybe bike lanes for a busier street.

For instance, in discussions of “roads,” it seems to me that it might be particularly useful to make a distinction between local thoroughfares (e.g., alleys, streets, boulevards, etc.) and limited access highways.

Local thoroughfares (when publicly owned) are typically open to anyone and everyone — pedestrians, bicyclists, buses (and also, potentially, to trolley cars, elevated lines, monorails, etc.). They are necessary to the very existence of cities — being the capillaries, blood vessels, arteries and veins of cities. They are truly public spaces and they SHOULD (so it seems to me) be government regulated and subsidized. (Who else is going to create, regulate and maintain such public, non-remunerative thoroughfares?)

Limited access highways (even when publicly owned), on the other hand, are typically intended for only certain users (e.g., cars, trucks, motorcycles [?], etc.). And some limited access roadways, like NYC’s parkways, are even limited to just non-commercial traffic (i.e., private autos)! Rather than enhancing urban districts, such roadways actually damage them both directly (e.g., creating barriers, etc.) and indirectly (by favoring suburban residential and commercial development). So even if such roadways were totally free of government subsidies (a near impossibility in urban areas, however, although conceivably possible on some gigantic California or Texas ranch as a shortcut between cities) they would still be very damaging to cities.

Here are some other distinctions that I think might eventually prove useful in such discussions (and in similar related discussions, too): a distinction between roads and thoroughfares (which might also include pedestrian streets, etc.); a distinction between roads and roadbeds (are the portion of roads used by vehicles) and rights-of-way (which might also include, in addition to roadbeds, sidewalks, bikeways, bus lanes, etc.).

For instance, these later distinctions could be useful, so it seems to me, in discussions about the ideal amount of space that should be devoted to “streets,” which seemed to be the subject of a post that was linked to a few weeks ago. The linked to post seemed to feel that “streets” (with no distinction made between rights-of-way and roadbeds) take up too much space. While the author of the post may believe this to be true in any case, whether such distinctions are made or not, I would argue (as Jane Jacobs has) that “streets” (rights-of-way) constitute very important and useful urban open spaces and that the “real” problem, instead, is likely to be too much space devoted to roadbeds — especially when an overabundance of roadbed space is concentrated into just a few very wide streets (rather distributed among many small streets, that would, among other things, create lots of small blocks).

- – - – -

P.S. — Lots of great posts, recently. Hope I’ll find the time to comment on more of them.

For instance, in discussions of “roads,” it seems to me that it might be particularly useful to make a distinction between local thoroughfares (e.g., alleys, streets, boulevards, etc.) and limited access highways.

Local thoroughfares (when publicly owned) are typically open to anyone and everyone — pedestrians, bicyclists, buses (and also, potentially, to trolley cars, elevated lines, monorails, etc.). They are necessary to the very existence of cities — being the capillaries, blood vessels, arteries and veins of cities. They are truly public spaces and they SHOULD (so it seems to me) be government regulated and subsidized. (Who else is going to create, regulate and maintain such public, non-remunerative thoroughfares?)

Limited access highways (even when publicly owned), on the other hand, are typically intended for only certain users (e.g., cars, trucks, motorcycles [?], etc.). And some limited access roadways, like NYC’s parkways, are even limited to just non-commercial traffic (i.e., private autos)! Rather than enhancing urban districts, such roadways actually damage them both directly (e.g., creating barriers, etc.) and indirectly (by favoring suburban residential and commercial development). So even if such roadways were totally free of government subsidies (a near impossibility in urban areas, however, although conceivably possible on some gigantic California or Texas ranch as a shortcut between cities) they would still be very damaging to cities.

Here are some other distinctions that I think might eventually prove useful in such discussions (and in similar related discussions, too): a distinction between roads and thoroughfares (which might also include pedestrian streets, etc.); a distinction between roads and roadbeds (are the portion of roads used by vehicles) and rights-of-way (which might also include, in addition to roadbeds, sidewalks, bikeways, bus lanes, etc.).

For instance, these later distinctions could be useful, so it seems to me, in discussions about the ideal amount of space that should be devoted to “streets,” which seemed to be the subject of a post that was linked to a few weeks ago. The linked to post seemed to feel that “streets” (with no distinction made between rights-of-way and roadbeds) take up too much space. While the author of the post may believe this to be true in any case, whether such distinctions are made or not, I would argue (as Jane Jacobs has) that “streets” (rights-of-way) constitute very important and useful urban open spaces and that the “real” problem, instead, is likely to be too much space devoted to roadbeds — especially when an overabundance of roadbed space is concentrated into just a few very wide streets (rather distributed among many small streets, that would, among other things, create lots of small blocks).

- – - – -

P.S. — Lots of great posts, recently. Hope I’ll find the time to comment on more of them.