« sydney: ambitious draft car-sharing policy | Main | more on my talk at railvolution tuesday »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83454714d69e20133f50882ef970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference comment of the week: serene and effective transit:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Alon Levy

Bear in mind that while Switzerland's rural rail is better than that of any other country, rural Switzerland remains auto-oriented. It's urban Switzerland that has very high transit mode shares.

Danny

I ran into the same phenomenon in Honduras. Developments happen mostly along major roads, even in rural areas.

I actually lived for a while in a town called Sabanagrande. You can see it here: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=sabana+grande+honduras&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

It was a TINY town of about 1500 people (smaller than my high school), and yet because it was squarely on the path between Tegucigalpa and Choluteca, I never had to wait more than 5 minutes for an intercity bus. Well, I guess one time I waited 15 minutes, but that was at 4:00AM.

There are other small towns that are quite a bit larger than Sabanagrande, but were out of the way of major routes. I remember one town with a population of 15k that only had buses come about 5 times per day. What a big difference location makes.

Cap'n Transit

It's especially interesting considering how a lot of urbanists favor grids and multiple routes in cities.

John

It's probably also why Honolulu outperforms all other US cities of its size.

F

And also why rural Japan is so well-served by trains and buses. Outside the Kantō and Yamato plains, Japan is a graph at least as much as Switzerland is.

Leo

@Cap'n Transit:
1. A street has capacity limitations. Running more than 60 buses an hour down one street tends to encounter difficulties.

2. Frequent cross-streets are very important for being able to walk to and from a bus stop.

3. Cities tend to not be arranged in a straight line even without grids. The opposite of a grid in this discussion would be a giant spiral, not cul-de-sacs. Cul-de-sacs also contradict the single route approach.

anonymouse

I think the "grids" urbanists are talking about are at a finer scale, and opposed to the suburban cul-de-sac-hell style of development, where there is an arterial street with a residential area along it, but separated by a wall, and zero or one access points into the residential area from the arterial per half-mile. You can still have this along a single road in a mountain valley, which would mean that the people in the residential area potentially have to walk an extra 10 minutes to get to the bus stop.

EngineerScotty


For the better part of a century, contemporary highway engineering has viewed this type of road--the rural arterial passing throuh town centers and surrounded by commerce--as something to be bypassed. The needs of inter-urban travelers are placed above the needs of small-town residents (often on the legit grounds that there are more of them), and limited-access roadways are built (where adjoining property access is prohibited, either by law or by easement restrictions). And more often than not, if there's bus-based transit, it gets routed on said bypass, rather than using the "old" route, on the grounds that most of its passengers are trying to get from big city A to big city B.

J

Unrelated:

There was a very large ad today in the Fresno Bee about your upcoming appearance. Is it a surprise? I haven't seen it mentioned here on this website.

If you'd like, I could send you a picture of the ad.

Of course, this being Fresno, the irony is that there is a large picture of a bus, but instead of saying which bus route serves the venue, there are instructions on where to park.

Jarrett

@J. I've seen the poster, yes. It's on my list to do a post on it. Yes, I had the same comments, but you start where you are.

Jarrett

@All re grids.

Tne grid is the perfect network form for for a continuously developed two-dimensional area, as I argued here:

http://www.humantransit.org/2010/10/sydney-ambitious-new-car-sharing-policy.html

... and in that case I am talking about a large scale network grid with routes spaced every 800m/0.75 mi or so.

This doesn't change the fact that you can get even better outcomes if your service area is "one-dimensional" so that the whole thing can be on one line.

Jeffrey Jakucyk

This doesn't surprise me too much. Historically, the busiest streetcar line in Cincinnati was the East End car line. That's a long neighborhood (actually a string of sub-neighborhoods) that stretches about 5 miles east of downtown along the Ohio River, sandwiched between the river and the steep hillsides. This neighborhood is generally no more than two or three blocks wide, making transit access very easy. Unfortunately due to river flooding and general urban flight, it's quite depopulated now.

I also think that highly linear development like this makes transit ridership much higher, because there's actually very little within walking distance from a particular point. Instead of having a large radius of things within walking distance, you only have a choice of walking up or down the main corridor. This means you have to use transit more often to get to what might otherwise be a lot closer in a flat gridded neighborhood.

GD

Though it is implicitly there in the article, let's just remember that you need a particular kind of alpine valley in which the centers of population are really just strung along, and not nestled on any plateaus or in side valleys. Or, for that matter, valleys along a river that does U-turns and other such nasty things.
Also, even European transit suffers from service cuts, especially in those very sparsely populated side-valleys, which, ironically, can be found much more often in the lower parts of the Alps. The higher the mountains get, the more sharply defined and thus transit-friendly the population distribution will be.

Paul C, Vancouver

While a linear pattern may a more effective transit experience. Simply because it is easier to run one bus route down one street. Then it is to run multiple bus routes down multiple streets.

But this idea seriously breaks down once you population starts to rise. Simply because the distance someone has to travel increases with a linear pattern versus a grid pattern.

If a city were laid in a 25KM/1KM pattern. With one road. Then a person at one end would have to travel at least 25KM just to get to the other end. You might also assume that the average distance travelled is half thus the average person has to travel 25.5KM

If you take that same city and laid it out in a 5KM/5KM pattern. Now the furtherest anyone has to travel (corner to corner). Would be approx 7KM. Even then the average distance would be half that at about 3.5KM.

So a linear lay out may work fine in much smaller populated areas. It would never work in more populated areas.

Paul C, Vancouver

EDIT for my above comment

I meant to say that the average distance in my linear example would be 12.5KM not 25.5KM as I mistakenly typed. :)

Brisbane

Isn't this the whole 'linear cities' thing all over again? Didn't linear cities die out in the 1940s???

J

@Jarrett, I dont know how long you'll be in town, but if you'd like some recommendations on what to see/eat/do Id be glad to send some. Of course Im going to try to make the talk.

voony

yes Topography is very important,

I have touch on it in
http://voony.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/thezurichmodel/

K

@Brisbane, I'd describe the Gold Coast as a linear city. It just follows the coast.

Wanderer

The Napa Valley in California is an interesting example of this, most of the towns are strung along one highway. So it's possible, even with pinched American funding, to give them some level of transit service. Whereas in the "wine" area of neighboring Sonoma County (not the suburban area), population is much more dispersed and service not as good.

Jase

Recognizing the merits of the linear small town, I once did some analysis comparing a long grid with a square grid. I thought the long grid might win, and that would explain new York. Wrong. The square grid led to lower travel times. In any substantial linear city with central density, pt would be too busy in the center and too empty out in the burbs ( assuming consistent capacity along the route)

francis

The linear system works best when there are two cities, thus providing anchors at each end.

The comments to this entry are closed.

the firm

Jarrett is now in ...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...