Talk:Stroad

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

does anyone actually use this word other than Charles Marohn and Not Just Bikes?

there are 30 mentions of Marohn in an article that should be about the concept itself. does anyone else actually talk about this? 216.80.40.254 (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, a person who added some "stroad related" material here. I would be very much pleased if there was a more general theory / set of literature that covers this topic, since I observed this effect in everyday life andwanted some theory to understand it, and felt the stroad literature which others suggested on geography forums was a bit lacking though addressed the effect I had observed. One thing I remember hearing in a podcast I listened to on the topic is that dutch planners seem to understand this problem and implement policy to fix it - so there might be some theory there. Perhaps this cite that I just found while searching for stroad within academic literature

Asadi, M., M. B. Ulak, K. T. Geurs, W. Weijermars, and P. Schepers. A Comprehensive Analysis of36 the Relationships between the Built Environment and Traffic Safety in the Dutch Urban Areas.37 Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 172, 2022, p. 106683

The citing document says "This type of facilities that is notoriously ubiquitous in the USA (often called “stroad”) is discouraged by the safe system principles)"

As to whether the term is being used, on that most reliable of sources, youtube video essays, it gets a bit of use. Searching scholarly and "policy" literature with this search the term seems to be getting used in other literature, but none of the examples I could find are that well cited (though they are quite new). Talpedia 23:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@216.80.40.254 you do realise that the article has a References and Bibliography section, right? Like all articles should, and most articles do. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that I am responding to an experienced Wikipedia article, but I find your response very puzzling. There are a lot of sources about the notion "stroad" which is a recent term coined by people who don't like the concept, and my attempts to point this out very mildly got reverted. Any article that does not cite studies about the benefits of many famous "stroads" like El Camino Real, Santa Monica Blvd, etc (I gave examples in the talk page) because they are not about "stroads" will always be biased. Ashishgoel.1973 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant an experience Wikipedia "editor", not "article". Ashishgoel.1973 (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word stroad was coined back in 2011, 13 years ago. That's more than half the age of Wikipedia itself. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles about words that are far more recent than that. It doesn't matter how old or young a word it; what matters is whether it passes WP:GNG, and it does. NLeeuw (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is anectodal, but my daughter had a lesson on stroads in her 2nd grade class. My wife is a city planner and knows about the concept, but was shocked to hear it from her daughter coming home from school. I think it's use is spreading, though it's a new term for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.157.174 (talk) 20:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Stroad" used in a June 2023 report by United States Department of Transportation — Federal Highway Administration, now cited in the article:

https://international.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/mrp/docs/FHWA-PL-23-006.pdf PK-WIKI (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this is a really strange article. An editor should look at it to see if it falls within wikipedia bias guidelines. Since the term "stroad" is recent, and is only used by people criticizing this concept, there is very little literature explicitly in its favor. Hence, the right test for bias fo this article is not whether it represents scholarly knowledge about "stroads" in a balanced way, but whether it represents the underlying concept in a balanced way. Under this test, it is easy to find articles about "stroads" that celebrate their history as well as imagine a sustainable future where they play a vital role. E.g. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/history-and-significance-of-el-camino-real-de-tierra-adentro.htm and https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/el-camino-real-an-opportunity-for-transit-oriented-development/ about El Camino Real, a main artery of the Bay Area. Ashishgoel.1973 (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Globalize tag

Hello. I'm adding the Globalize tag to this article as most of its information is about North America and Europe. I hope the template could be removed from this article when more information regarding the rest of the world is added into it. Jothefiredragon (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

To preface, I am against stroads, I recognize the objective drawbacks of them and I agree with almost everything in the article. That said, that's not the point of Wikipedia. I feel like everything written here is written with a massive anti-stroad and pro-urbanism sentiment without providing a counterpoint, and that's not the way an article should be written. I'm adding a disputed neutrality tag because I feel like this could really be improved upon. There's criticism of anti-stroad arguments that deserve article space for the sake of fairness. Stroads are literally all over North America, this article shouldn't be a political piece for a relatively niche political movement. DepressedHertaFan (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Stroads article is a WP:SUBPOV, a "subject which itself represents a point of view". The article could be titled something like Criticism of auto-centric business boulevards, but "Stroad" is the WP:COMMONNAME.

If there was a positive/neutral term for stroads, I might agree that this should all be folded into a neutral article that defined the subject and presented WP:NPOV pros and cons. But that term/article doesn't seem to exist. The neutral discussion is happening in articles like Car dependency, Suburbanization, Urban sprawl, etc. The article Stroad is an inherently opinionated/non-neutral criticism article, as covered by reliable sources. If significant coverage of "pro-stroad" viewpoints does exist it should be added to this article, per WP:POVFORK: Any subarticle that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article. PK-WIKI (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PK-WIKI explains it very well. This is all within our policies and guidelines. If anyone can cite WP:RS which make pro-stroad arguments, or criticism of anti-stroad arguments, those can be added to the article in the relevant subsections.

The issue of stroads, and street design in the United States and Canada more broadly, isn't "political" in the sense of partisan. Conservatives and liberals alike have reasons of their own for seeking to change certain situations; liberals for environmental reasons, conservatives for fiscal responsibility reasons, both for safety reasons, and so on. NLeeuw (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't look at it from that perspective. You're right, I'll remove the neutrality template. I do still think it's important for some counter opinions to do be in the article, but I won't be the one to do it considering how bias I am in the subject. Thank you and @Nederlandse Leeuw for your input. DepressedHertaFan (talk) 01:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DepressedHertaFan You're welcome! And don't worry, we've all got our biases. The challenge is to try and minimise the influence our biases have on our editing, and take others' perspectives into account.

Speaking of which, I see that you like to write about racing cars? Well, it has been demonstrated that stroads are poorly designed to have cars drive at high speeds, because they are so frequently jammed with traffic that the average speed is far below the speed limit. That has to do with the large number of entries/exits, and every vehicle that wants to enter or leave the stroad slows down the speed at which the rest can drive. If you like driving cars at high speeds, safely, without constantly having to slow down because of other vehicles in front of you, you'd probably prefer highways (motorways, stroomwegen) or connector roads (gebiedsontsluitingswegen) over stroads as well.

I'm always open to be proven wrong and be corrected. But so far, I haven't really seen any arguments defending stroads as such. Only statements that do not seem to understand the full complexity of the issue (especially induced demand), or people who fear they will lose their "freedom" to drive anywhere anywhen anyhow, even though stroads appear to be the least attractive option to do so for any fan of driving. NLeeuw (talk) 02:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]