Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Distributed Core Alternative

Expand Messages
  • Will
    I ve posted a variation on Joel s theme and variations, in response to concerns over the effects of terrorism on the central hub area. I realize this has been
    Message 1 of 4 , Sep 6, 2005
      I've posted a variation on Joel's theme and variations, in response to
      concerns over the effects of terrorism on the central hub area. I
      realize this has been discussed before, and that the current design
      has taken that into consideration to a degree. However, I couldn't
      shut down the thought process on this variation, so please comment.

      All lines are double tracks. An attack at any site would simply mean
      that site was avoided, and all routing would stop at a station before
      it and then proceed back in the direction it came, until it came back
      to the station on the other side of the attacked station, where it
      would reverse again.
      http://f6.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/EMsdQ-C_znQipPv02HwJy04vFYp_E7LmyQu2qQRSOOIWCMRpCalohvFYZXrFWC4BtdtGzbZbplGLyJVzNWnX9CrdVLVubQ/Distributed%20Core%20Alternative.gif

      or http://tinyurl.com/dsktx

      The center node, if needed at all, could be connected by trams. This
      could be a larger node, though its overall percentage compared to the
      other 46 nodes would be small. It might be better to have no central
      node, so that everything about this city was truly distributed (i.e.,
      no single 'town center'), greatly reducing even the perceived effects
      of an attack. The central area could be a park, with ampitheater, etc
      for large occasions. Much of the power required could be supplied by
      rooftop PV, a set of fuel cells, and medium scale wind power (if the
      site has suitable wind).

      While this is different than variations of Joel's I've seen, it is
      only slightly so, so any credit for this (if this is perceived to be
      of value) would considered to be Joel's. Of course, there are
      variations of this that are intriguing.

      Comments?

      Will Stewart
    • Will
      Similar to the previous variation, but this time adding a ring line within the outer area, and extending the tram, resulting in 64 mixed nodes within a
      Message 2 of 4 , Sep 6, 2005
        Similar to the previous variation, but this time adding a 'ring' line
        within the outer area, and extending the tram, resulting in 64 mixed
        nodes within a roughly 52 square mile area. Population would roughly
        be 800,000, based on the base district, with plenty of space for large
        exonode pocket parks everywhere.
        http://f2.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/INkdQ3U-5YXL4po4AO93fcvqjOqOvttktJR6lO4pxGx3wILCXigYz-PfsmYDiwCbJ2wXqDBxKQf6JlSVTlGvHq8YqQ3x1w/Distributed%20Core%20Alternative%20II.gif

        All destinations could no longer be reached by a single transit
        transfer if the central node was implemented.


        Will Stewart
      • Will
        Interestingly enough, the link to the files are not working. Please look in the files section http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/files Will
        Message 3 of 4 , Sep 6, 2005
          Interestingly enough, the link to the files are not working. Please
          look in the files section
          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carfree_cities/files

          Will
        • Will
          Could someone take a look at the variations I offered in the files section and comment? Will Stewart ...
          Message 4 of 4 , Sep 13, 2005
            Could someone take a look at the variations I offered in the files
            section and comment?

            Will Stewart

            --- In carfree_cities@yahoogroups.com, "Will" <v_stewart@e...> wrote:
            > I've posted a variation on Joel's theme and variations, in response to
            > concerns over the effects of terrorism on the central hub area. I
            > realize this has been discussed before, and that the current design
            > has taken that into consideration to a degree. However, I couldn't
            > shut down the thought process on this variation, so please comment.
            >
            > All lines are double tracks. An attack at any site would simply mean
            > that site was avoided, and all routing would stop at a station before
            > it and then proceed back in the direction it came, until it came back
            > to the station on the other side of the attacked station, where it
            > would reverse again.
            >
            http://f6.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/EMsdQ-C_znQipPv02HwJy04vFYp_E7LmyQu2qQRSOOIWCMRpCalohvFYZXrFWC4BtdtGzbZbplGLyJVzNWnX9CrdVLVubQ/Distributed%20Core%20Alternative.gif
            >
            > or http://tinyurl.com/dsktx
            >
            > The center node, if needed at all, could be connected by trams. This
            > could be a larger node, though its overall percentage compared to the
            > other 46 nodes would be small. It might be better to have no central
            > node, so that everything about this city was truly distributed (i.e.,
            > no single 'town center'), greatly reducing even the perceived effects
            > of an attack. The central area could be a park, with ampitheater, etc
            > for large occasions. Much of the power required could be supplied by
            > rooftop PV, a set of fuel cells, and medium scale wind power (if the
            > site has suitable wind).
            >
            > While this is different than variations of Joel's I've seen, it is
            > only slightly so, so any credit for this (if this is perceived to be
            > of value) would considered to be Joel's. Of course, there are
            > variations of this that are intriguing.
            >
            > Comments?
            >
            > Will Stewart
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.