Sprawl Madness: Two Houses Share Backyard, Separated by 7 Miles of Roads

It would take you more than two hours to walk between these two suburban Orlando houses with adjoining backyards, thanks to the windy, disconnected road system. Image: ##https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Anna%20Catherine%20Dr&daddr=Summer%20Rain%20Dr&hl=en&ll=28.532697,-81.161142&spn=0.001133,0.00217&sll=28.53225,-81.161858&sspn=0.002116,0.002599&geocode=FVBgswEd85Ep-w;FfhfswEdiJUp-w&t=h&mra=mift&mrsp=1&sz=19&z=19&utm_source=buffer&buffer_share=c886b##Google Maps##

Just how absurd have American development patterns become over the past few decades?

Behold: Two houses with adjoining backyards in suburban Orlando. If you want to travel the streets from point A on Anna Catherine Drive to point B on Summer Rain Drive, which are only 50 feet apart, you’ll have to go a minimum of seven miles. The trip would take almost twenty minutes in a car, according to Google Maps.

Windy street patterns, full of cul-de-sacs and circles, have become such a ubiquitous feature of the suburbs that they mostly escape remark. But disconnected streets have many insidious consequences for the environment, public health, and social equity.

For one, the lack of a functional street grid funnels traffic onto wide arterial roads — which tend to be the most dangerous places for pedestrians. Furthermore, disconnected streets discourage trips by foot or bike. People who can drive have no incentive to walk or bike anywhere because the trips would be too long and dangerous, while people who can’t drive are effectively trapped in their own homes, or are highly dependent on caretakers.

The Congress for the New Urbanism’s Sustainable Street Network Principles guide outlines seven principles for walkable, safe streets. The number one principle is to “create a street network that supports communities and places.”

A major source of the problem, CNU points out, is that current transportation engineering and funding conventions favor building individual segments of roads, as opposed to a network of streets. In 2009, CNU even had legislation supporting street networks at the federal level inserted into the CLEAN-TEA transportation bill, which died along with the climate bill that year.

In the meantime, CNU has been offering trainings on their Street Network Principles to local communities and transportation professionals. Ultimately, CNU planner Heather Smith says, they are interested in getting the principles adopted into policy at all levels of government.

Someone with influence in suburban Orlando needs to take that course.

  • Bill Clay

    “Windy street patterns”

    WINDY? Windy refers to the wind blowing, not a WINDING road.

    “Someone with influence in suburban Orlando needs to take that course.”

    Someone at Streetsblog needs to take an English writing course. 😉

  • SoldierCynic

    Someone needs to fact check before playing Mr. Pedantic.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/windy

  • Bill Clay

    Someone needs to Google a little harder before playing Grammar Cop.

    https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/winding

    “Use the adjective winding to describe something with twists and turns, like a winding country road or a little winding mountain stream.”

  • Christopher Dixon

    The dictionary is not a rulebook. It is a usage guide. The word, windy, is both an adjective that is a synoynm for the adjective, winding.

    I believe that originally the only correct form was winding; however, language does evolve over time.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/windy#nav2

    From the Oxford (as the earlier link was from Merriam). -windy 2
    Pronunciation: /?w?nd?/
    ADJECTIVE

    (Of a road or river) following a curving or twisting course.

    I know that you’re likely sticking to your guns. I also agree that winding is the choice of pedants everywhere; however, it’s just not the only accepted usage.

  • Bill Clay

    “The dictionary is not a rulebook. It is a usage guide.”

    Exactly. A guide to correct usage. Period.

  • SoldierCynic

    “A guide to correct usage. Period.”

    Well then we are in agreement. There’s a definition of windy in at least two dictionaries matching the usage in the article, therefore the usage was correct. Period. Full stop.

  • Bill Clay

    We are in agreement that you are illiterate, that is correct.

    You can find “fo’ shizzle” in an online dictionary, also. Feel free to use it on your resume, if you ever get employed.

  • SoldierCynic

    It’s axiomatic that neither of us are illiterate, so you only discredit yourself with that line of argument. Winding is indeed the far more common adjective–probably by several orders of magnitude; however, windy is acceptable in this useage. Windy, as in meandering or twisty, goes back to at least the late 1800s. I sympathize with your angst in the matter, but personal feelings do not decide acceptable useage.

  • Bill Clay

    “Windy, as in meandering or twisty, goes back to at least the late 1800s.”

    The next time you’re churning your butter and spinning your loom you can feel free to use the incorrect archaic term ‘windy’. The rest of us in the modern world will continue to use proper English and try not to laugh at your anachronistic contumaciousness.

  • SoldierCynic

    “Goes back to at least the late 1800s” does not mean windy is anachronistic, archaic, or incorrect any more so than winding whose origins go back further to the early 1700s. Again with the attacks rather than actual discourse, do you have nothing constructive to contribute?

  • Bill Clay

    “does not mean windy is anachronistic, archaic, or incorrect”

    Actually, that’s exactly what it means despite your tortured attempts at circuitous syllogism.

  • CockADoodleDoo

    Matt Barnes is a twicebone!

  • CockADoodleDoo

    Good point! Reminds me of that part in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, in which he is racing through the suburban backyards. It would still be better to have a few more official road and footpath connections though, in mine opinion!!

  • escalinci

    Prohibiting short car trips is a desirable goal for a residential community. The trouble is there are not shorter foot or bicycle-only routes to capitalize on that.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Arizona DOT Study: Compact, Mixed-Use Development Leads to Less Traffic

|
Does walkable development really lead to worse traffic congestion? Opponents of urbanism often say so, citing impending traffic disaster to rally people against, say, a new mixed-use project proposed in their backyards. But new research provides some excellent evidence to counter those claims. A recent study by the Arizona Department of Transportation [PDF] found that […]

Atlanta’s Pleasantdale Road Voted the Least Crossable Street in America

|
Streetsblog readers have spoken, choosing Atlanta’s Pleasantdale Road as the “least crossable street in America,” which beat tough competition from Phoenix, Kansas City, and other cities. To legally walk from the bus stop at Pleasant Shade Drive to the apartment complex across the street using the nearest crosswalk would require a three-quarter-mile trip. Jacob Mason, the […]