169
The traditional suburban street design of winding roads and cul-de-sacs is just as responsible for U.S. car dependency as the distances created by sprawl, according to new Yale research. (environment.yale.edu)
submitted 4 months ago by to c/science@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Maybe. You are on the right track, but every bus stop is time robbed from people who are not getting on/off at that stop. Stopping at the entry to every cul-de-sac is too much. So really your 200 meters is 400 meters - the bus should only stop every 400 meters. (the 400 meter is a simple number of discussion, but any book covering this will have several chapters covering all the different trade offs, exceptions and the like: go read the book before arguing the number)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Right, but even then, a significant portion of the cul-de-sacs homes can still be serviced. Just those close to the entry/exit.

    There are also recommendations that bus stops should only be about 200 meters apart. That seems to match my experience when living in a small-ish town. Some parts were inevitable underserved, but that's hardly avoidable I think.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Like I said, there are a ton of trade offs in stop spacing. In a small town with few places to go 200 works, but I'm going to stand by 400 as a better distance for most people is the better compromise overall.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (4 children)

    We still have legs. It's not that hard to walk 400m.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (3 children)

    But it is harder and takes longer than walking 200 meters. Your trip time is the door to door time not the time it takes transit to get there. People generally consider 30 minutes the maximum reasonable commute. 5 minutes of walking, 5 minutes waiting for the bus, then 5 minutes on the other end, and we have already used half of our time before we even got on the bus! This doesn't allow time for a transfer. While some of my numbers are a little high, they are not unreasonable and they add up why people often say transit is useless even when exists. In turn thinking about what can be done to reduce those numbers is important - but often they increase something else by even more since there are so many compromises.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    I'd rather take the extra 2 minute walk out of my neighborhood than live in a street with bus traffic.

    There are things to be fixed. The grocery store is a 15 minute walk (one way) IF I trespass through a neighbor's yard and hop a large fence. So instead it's half an hour each way.

    There is no public transit to speak of here, cul-de-sac or not.

    I just think this anti cul-de-sac take is extreme.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    There's a tradeoff though. I used to take the bus to work. 20-25 minute drive, about 45-50 by bus with 1 transfer. I would bring a book and turn commute time into reading time. It really made it worth the extra time.

    I do think there's a limit. Double the time is fine, given that you can relax. More than double starts to feel like too much of a time sink.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    I get carsick when I read on the bus. So that doesn't apply to me. I also have a family that time at work or on the bus is taking away from. If it works for you great, but it doesn't for everybody.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent