The Stroad

Middle shared turn lanes are quite safe though, though I don't have actual stats. It's very hard to hit someone in one because no one is driving more than 50 ft in one, and you're always coming to a stop to prepare for a turn. On busy streets they are usually a bit wider than a normal lane, and on 80 km/h highways, they are a full lane-and-a-half wide. On busier residential streets with lots of single family homes, they are a great alternative to two lanes in each direction, because they allow for separated bike lanes and left-turning cars don't block traffic flow. Many 50 km/h roads in my city have been converted like this.

You would never put one in a newly designed road, but when a road needs to be upgraded, they are a great solution.

You did say "Induced demand is nonsense". And it's not.

> It didn't work in Katy Texas because they didn't build enough.

The Katy Freeway is literally the widest highway in the world.

The biggest in the world. Adding lanes doesn't help. This is not controversial.

> Improving transit would be my preferred option.

There are many solutions, and you don't have to pick just one.

Better transit. Dedicated bus lanes. Mixed zoning (so much this). Separate bike lanes. Etc.. etc..

It's not that we should force people to use the bus. It's that if you're stuck in traffic and had a magic wand that could turn 30 cars into one bus, would you use it? Well, clearly yes. Many times. Ok, so now that this driver agrees that they want other people to use the bus, it's just a matter of making the bus experience better, so that they do.

But yes, that falls under (as you say) "improving transit". But there's more.

Anyway, "Not Just Bikes" says this so much better than I could.

I agree there isn't much real demand for high density housing as much as reluctant demand. What I mean by that, is that no one actually wants to live in high density areas, but they go for it when it gives them access to a desirable location they otherwise can't afford, or if they genuinely want that lifestyle, which I would argue is age-based more than anything. In reality, most people don't like the downsides of high density like crowded public spaces (for example parks), dealing with the habits of bad neighbors (like playing loud music at odd times), increased crime that correlates with urban areas, poor schools guided by populist policies, and so on. If you're young, you might put up with those downsides to get back access to bars or more social networking. But as you age, the value of those things drops significantly for most people.

As for walkability - its utility is vastly overblown in my opinion. Your note about childless adults rings true for me, and the only parents I know who care about walk scores are the ones who are themselves urbanist activists (few in number). Even then, when it came time to purchase a home, walkability was not a decision maker for those couples. To me, that was a signal that even parents who were very anti-car in their political sentiment ultimately didn't put enough of a value on the pro-walk/bike lifestyle to prioritize it when their money was on the line.

I also think it is impractical to not have a car. If you want to live a rich life with access to diverse activities, instead of being boxed into a 15 minute radius or your metro line, then you need a car. Who wants to deny their children the memories of day trips and the thrill of exploration? And if you have a car, then you already have the vehicle you need to live in a more suburban neighborhood, where you can enjoy additional space and safety while still accessing commercial areas in a time efficient manner.

> I agree that induced demand is nonsense

It's not. This is a fact. It sounds like you are trying to reason about this from pure logic, and are not aware that this is an empirical fact.

You can only go so far armchair guessing about how city planning "ought to" work.

> Demand either exists or it doesn't.

To get to the place, yes. To get to the place in a car, no.

If you double the capacity of a road network, that means more people will choose to drive.

Example: If the city I live in doubled the car capacity, I would buy a car and drive it. But since everyone else would too, it'd actually stabilize to the same congestion. (I forget, but the actually observed phenomenon has a name)

Or let's say you had some billions of dollars to improve the situation of the I-101 in California. What do you think will happen if you add a lane? More people who currently take a tech company shuttle will start driving instead. More people who currently take Caltrain will start driving instead.

And then you're back. I'm not guessing, this is established knowledge. No matter how hard people try to double down on a failed strategy (see Katy Freeway), it just doesn't help traffic. It just makes more people drive.

Now spend those billions on making the Caltrain experience better, and you'll start seeing existing lanes on the 101 free up.

> After all, if you built 100 lanes there wouldn't magically be 100 lanes of traffic.

A 100? Maybe not. But apparently 26 lanes is not enough (Katy Freeway).

But there are other aspects to this too, other than roads and transit. E.g. zoning. It greatly reduces traffic on existing roads if you can just walk over to the store to buy some groceries, because it's a 5min walk. Instead of driving and being stuck in traffic for 10 minutes because it's too far to walk and crosses an 8 lane highway.

Every person who went shopping in the local store is another car not on the road, both ways.

> Demand is fulfilled only up to the point that the demand exists.

This is only true in the sense that it's irrelevant. If you widen every street and avenue in NYC to 26 lanes, then maybe that's enough. But only because there will barely be any houses left to go to.

> There's no magical induction that urbanists vaguely gesture at.

That's not what's happening.

The issues are well-discussed in NotJustBikes specifically: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul_xzyCDT98

It's not just a vague grass-is-greener issue. And sure, Dutch cities can be soulless and boring by some measures, but that's the norm for American suburbia too.

It's not just a matter of self-report of happiness, the support for the Netherlands style of living is strong by a ton of measures.

Here's the thing: stuff like the eyes-on-the-street effect are HUGE. A sprawly American suburb that still has a neighborhood park where there are reliably dozens of kids who know each other… that works, because it's safe enough to let your kids go to the park with their friends without adult supervision. The fact is, other kids there means it's not bizarre to see one isolated seemingly-abandoned kid, and if they get hurt, there are other kids around to help them or to run home or call their parents etc.

It's not strictly a matter of cars. The whole issue of "stroad" vs road isn't anti-car. Roads are for cars mainly. Stroads are fundamentally dangerous. They are part of the development style that makes it unsafe for younger kids to get out on their bikes and be independent.

Given the choice of dense urban life vs car-dependent-sprawl, it's understandable why many people choose the latter. The problem is the missing-middle. Why is it illegal in most places to build moderate-dense walkable mixed-use neighborhoods that are neither densely urban nor car-dependent-sprawl? The capacity of people to choose different lifestyles along this continuum is missing. The rare places in the middle are crazy expensive because demand far outstrips supply. So, we really don't get anywhere with a conversation focused on which of the limited polarized choices people are stuck with in the USA.