Hacker News Reader

Comment by smoldesu | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sold. I live on a so-called road, it's comprised of a single lane of paved dirt that stretches on for 3/4ths of a mile. On top of that, the very first line is just utterly comical:

> If we want to build towns that are financially productive, we need to identify and eliminate stroads.

You're missing the point on why they're made. They're built to facilitate expansion in confined areas. I'd argue that it's more dangerous and less financially productive to have a street there, and incredibly more dangerous to put a road there. So, what's the solution?

View on HN

> so-called road, it's comprised of a single lane of paved dirt

Note the verbiage on road from the article:

> […] where people board in one place, depart in another and there is a high speed connection between the two.

See specifically "high speed connection". I have a hard time believing that a paved dirt 'road' would allow for a "high speed connection".

There is the colloquial use of the word, and the 'technical' distinction that the article is trying to make between different types of way that vehicles can travel on.

You don't live on a road, you either live on a street or stroad. A road by definition does not have building access. Maybe your backyard faces a road, but you couldn't drive onto it with a car from there.

That isn't the popular definition of a road, at least not in the US.

That is the definition used by the article being commented on.

Barely (it doesn't say anything about no building access).

In any case, if that is the point, it's better to say it that way, to talk about the distinction the article is making (like the sibling comment to the one I replied to) rather than saying "by definition" with some expectation that the conversation is being carried out with whatever precise set of definitions you've chosen.

The US definition sucks.

Okay, great, we've really moved the conversation forward here.

The vague implication, that 2-lane state and federal highways shouldn't have driveways on them, is not and will not be the situation for the foreseeable future, so there's a pretty good case for using some nuance instead of insisting on some particular technical definition.

Take that up with the city authority. The stretch leading up to my house is labelled as a road, and barring any radical legislation it will probably stay that way until the day I die.

From the link, there is a visible laneway near the end of the merge land on the right in the picture it presents as a road.

While the cropping of the image obscures what is at the end of the laneway, it most likely does have a building. As you can see there is a 911 number plate, which usually don't get issued in Ontario unless there is a building on the property. Additionally, it appears to be a recycling bin at the end of the lane under the Canadian flag, which further indicates that a building is present.

Moreover, we can find plenty of examples of buildings, including houses, that have direct access to that road.

There are people who live on roads in rural areas (typically at the end of a long driveway that functions as a street, effectively).

these aren't simple absolute definitions; go around determining what is what, and you bump into reality. There are definite roads that have a few businesses and homes on them, particularly rural roads. They are still roads. It becomes a stroad when it's trying to still be for distance-travel but has constant homes/businesses/intersections. Between that and limited-access freeways, there's a fuzzy middle that is road-enough without being a stroad yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com