Browse Groups

• ## Re: [carfree_cities] Squash the 6 lobes?

(5)
• NextPrevious
• Wouldn t tighter curves slow the metro down? And make it more noisy? Are we talking about making the loop of each lobe linear ? Like the spokes of a
Message 1 of 5 , Jan 31, 2001
View Source
Wouldn't tighter curves slow the metro down? And make it more noisy?

Are we talking about making the 'loop' of each lobe 'linear'? Like the
spokes of a wheel. IMO, this only helps some bike/ped trips & makes others
longer.

Or 'folding' the lobes themselves next to each other? Why would you do this
unless you are constricted by the local geological features? And, assuming
you are starting fresh, the most efficient spot for the 'hub' is in the
center. Working from what exists is a different story...

Mark
********************************************************
Work to become, not to acquire

Mark Watson __o
`\<
(o)/(o)

mark_a_watson@... Seattle, WA, USA
********************************************************
----Original Message Follows----
From: "J.H. Crawford" <postmaster@...>
To: carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [carfree_cities] Squash the 6 lobes?
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:09:31 +0000

>Looking at the plan in the Topology section, I was wondering why the
>lobes are so spread out. Squashing them together would not only
>improve the use of space, but also shorten journey times.

This derives from the "City-Country Fingers" pattern, as well
as from the desirability of having large green spaces close
to everybody. As noted in the book, the lobes CAN be squashed
together if necessary; I just don't regard it as idea. Transit
time by bike would in some cases be reduced, but, oddly, it has
no effect on travel times by metro.

_________________________________________________________________
• ... It adds to the total curvature, but does not reduce the radius of the tightest curve, which the design keeps quite gentle. This isn t really a problem. ...
Message 1 of 5 , Feb 1, 2001
View Source
Mark Watson said:

>Wouldn't tighter curves slow the metro down? And make it more noisy?

It adds to the total curvature, but does not reduce the radius
of the tightest curve, which the design keeps quite gentle. This
isn't really a problem.

>Are we talking about making the 'loop' of each lobe 'linear'? Like the
>spokes of a wheel. IMO, this only helps some bike/ped trips & makes others
>longer.

The closed loop has some operational advantages and sometimes
provides shorter routing for trips within the lobe. It's
not essential, and in some cases may be impossible to achieve.
It's simply, IMHO, the ideal.

>Or 'folding' the lobes themselves next to each other? Why would you do this
>unless you are constricted by the local geological features?

That, and a shortage of land, are the only real reasons I can see.

>And, assuming
>you are starting fresh, the most efficient spot for the 'hub' is in the
>center. Working from what exists is a different story...

Adapting the reference design to existing cities will be an art,
not a science.

###

J.H. Crawford Carfree Cities
postmaster@... Carfree.com
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.
• Changes have not been saved
Press OK to abandon changes or Cancel to continue editing
• Your browser is not supported
Kindly note that Groups does not support 7.0 or earlier versions of Internet Explorer. We recommend upgrading to the latest Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, or Firefox. If you are using IE 9 or later, make sure you turn off Compatibility View.