« apple maps vs google maps | Main | request for information: busways that "cross over" at stations »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83454714d69e2017615a48b31970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference can "network primers" reduce grief about network design?:

Comments

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

Michael G. Hurston

Your blog is really great on covering interesting transport related topics. I would love to chat about an alternative transportation project we have kicked off here in CA called the BiModal Glideway, a hybrid high speed rail and auto combination that allows existing modified cars to use a high speed rail system installed in existing road lanes.

bobney

OMG, a new gadgetbahn. There's so much wrong with it that I don't even know where to even start. And this is definitely not the right blog for this sort of discussion.

EN57

This is a great document, and I think many transit agencies around the world would identify with the issues covered and appreciate the local social/political circumstances that would have motivated TransLink to prepare it. Reducing grief about network design would definitely be one of the aims.

I don't see this document being specially directed to architects or town planners because it also hits on most of those service provision issues typically raised by members of the public and resident groups when requesting, demanding or rejecting changes. I can see how this document would be very helpful in raising general public awareness and tempering the continual and often unreasonable demands of myriad stakeholders wanting to make changes to transit systems that may not be in everyone’s interests.

TransLink reasonably states that it is not responsible for land use decisions. What I’m having trouble understanding is Jarrett’s suggestion that transit agencies ought to take a passive stance on landuse decisions and outcomes. Is this special advice for US readers? Where billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money has been invested in the building and operation of a transit system, is it right for that public investment to be undermined by landuse decisions that facilitate car use instead? Why shouldn't a transit agency tell the city government what it ought to do about landuse-transport integration, to enable transit to grow and prosper?

While Jarrett may identify good strategic reasons as to why transit agencies shouldn’t make forceful recommendations about landuse decisions in the US – does that advice necessarily apply to Canadian or Australian cities, or anywhere else in the world?

Michael D. Setty

Please keep the gadgetbahners off this blog. We don't need their B.S. to pollute the mostly sane conversations that take place here.

Gadgetbahners, you are NOT welcome here!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

the firm

Jarrett is now in ...

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