<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fun with Density and Transit Statistics</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pedshed.net/?feed=rss2&#038;p=131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pedshed.net/?p=131</link>
	<description>Walkable urban design and sustainable places</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:26:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Drake</title>
		<link>http://pedshed.net/?p=131&#038;cpage=1#comment-18781</link>
		<dc:creator>Drake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pedshed.net/?p=131#comment-18781</guid>
		<description>Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institute cites Pushkarev&#039;s and Zupan&#039;s &lt;i&gt;Public Transportation and Land use Policy&lt;/i&gt; in his assertions, stating this:

&lt;i&gt;Past studies, including one published in 1977 by Boris S. Pushkarev and Jeffery M. Zupan, have shown that public transit works best where gross residential densities are above 4,200 persons per square mile; relatively dense housing is clustered close to transit stations or stops; and large numbers of jobs are concentrated in relatively compact business districts.&lt;/i&gt;

I actually have the Public Transportation and Land use Policy right in front of me.  And in several sections, Pushkarev and Zupan explicitly stress that gross density is a &quot;very poor estimator of residential density&quot;, and that they don&#039;t use it in their comparisons of cities.  

So that pretty much destroys a huge chunk of Mr. (Dr.?) Down&#039;s argument right there.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Anthony Downs of the Brookings Institute cites Pushkarev&#8217;s and Zupan&#8217;s <i>Public Transportation and Land use Policy</i> in his assertions, stating this:</p>
<p><i>Past studies, including one published in 1977 by Boris S. Pushkarev and Jeffery M. Zupan, have shown that public transit works best where gross residential densities are above 4,200 persons per square mile; relatively dense housing is clustered close to transit stations or stops; and large numbers of jobs are concentrated in relatively compact business districts.</i></p>
<p>I actually have the Public Transportation and Land use Policy right in front of me.  And in several sections, Pushkarev and Zupan explicitly stress that gross density is a &#8220;very poor estimator of residential density&#8221;, and that they don&#8217;t use it in their comparisons of cities.  </p>
<p>So that pretty much destroys a huge chunk of Mr. (Dr.?) Down&#8217;s argument right there.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laurence Aurbach</title>
		<link>http://pedshed.net/?p=131&#038;cpage=1#comment-18758</link>
		<dc:creator>Laurence Aurbach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:52:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pedshed.net/?p=131#comment-18758</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t know about transit planning procedures in Australia, but one suggestion is to contact the &lt;a href=&quot;Australian Council for New Urbanism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Australian Council for New Urbanism&lt;/a&gt; and ask them for information or sources.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know about transit planning procedures in Australia, but one suggestion is to contact the <a href="Australian Council for New Urbanism" rel="nofollow">Australian Council for New Urbanism</a> and ask them for information or sources.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark</title>
		<link>http://pedshed.net/?p=131&#038;cpage=1#comment-18757</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:26:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pedshed.net/?p=131#comment-18757</guid>
		<description>Any idea how transit planning is done in Australia - specifically, in the states of Queensland and New South Wales?   Especially interested in density estimates for bus service.    Thank you!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any idea how transit planning is done in Australia &#8211; specifically, in the states of Queensland and New South Wales?   Especially interested in density estimates for bus service.    Thank you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laurence Aurbach</title>
		<link>http://pedshed.net/?p=131&#038;cpage=1#comment-5295</link>
		<dc:creator>Laurence Aurbach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:23:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pedshed.net/?p=131#comment-5295</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s an interesting question. Here&#039;s how transportation planning often works in the U.S. 

Every large urbanized area is required to have a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) that carries out transportation planning, forecasting, and allocation of federal funds. MPOs use geographic units for transportation planning that are called traffic analysis zones (TAZ). TAZs are drawn using streets and roads as boundaries. They are drawn to have roughly equal populations, so in dense areas they will be small (such as a few blocks) and in rural areas they will be large (such as thousands of acres). 

One very useful feature of TAZs is that they include both the residential and work populations. You can see how this leads to some unexpected results in &lt;a href=&quot;http://pedshed.net/?p=99&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Density of Traditional Urbanism&lt;/a&gt;.

Roadway planning is relatively uncomplicated. A certain number of residents and jobs are forecast for a TAZ; these generate a certain number of trips; and therefore a certain amount of roadway capacity is required. That&#039;s still the conventional theory, although it has been seriously debated in recent years.

Transit planning is much less standardized, because transit modes are more diverse and transit ridership is more complex to model. Unlike roadway planning, transit planning has to consider things like the quality of walking routes, feelings of safety, and other hard to quantify issues. A good starting point for learning more might be the report &lt;a href=&quot;http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=7084 &quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Fixed-Route Transit Ridership Forecasting and Service Planning Methods&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s an interesting question. Here&#8217;s how transportation planning often works in the U.S. </p>
<p>Every large urbanized area is required to have a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) that carries out transportation planning, forecasting, and allocation of federal funds. MPOs use geographic units for transportation planning that are called traffic analysis zones (TAZ). TAZs are drawn using streets and roads as boundaries. They are drawn to have roughly equal populations, so in dense areas they will be small (such as a few blocks) and in rural areas they will be large (such as thousands of acres). </p>
<p>One very useful feature of TAZs is that they include both the residential and work populations. You can see how this leads to some unexpected results in <a href="http://pedshed.net/?p=99" rel="nofollow">The Density of Traditional Urbanism</a>.</p>
<p>Roadway planning is relatively uncomplicated. A certain number of residents and jobs are forecast for a TAZ; these generate a certain number of trips; and therefore a certain amount of roadway capacity is required. That&#8217;s still the conventional theory, although it has been seriously debated in recent years.</p>
<p>Transit planning is much less standardized, because transit modes are more diverse and transit ridership is more complex to model. Unlike roadway planning, transit planning has to consider things like the quality of walking routes, feelings of safety, and other hard to quantify issues. A good starting point for learning more might be the report <a href="http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=7084 " rel="nofollow">Fixed-Route Transit Ridership Forecasting and Service Planning Methods</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: karthik</title>
		<link>http://pedshed.net/?p=131&#038;cpage=1#comment-5215</link>
		<dc:creator>karthik</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 05:17:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pedshed.net/?p=131#comment-5215</guid>
		<description>the density calculations and its variations have left me even more confused. if one were looking for a basis for comparing densities of two urban areas, what would one use to arrive at a realistic estimate?
realistic meaning -- figures which one could use to work out transportation loads, plan neighbourhoods with appropriate residential and other typologies?
what works?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>the density calculations and its variations have left me even more confused. if one were looking for a basis for comparing densities of two urban areas, what would one use to arrive at a realistic estimate?<br />
realistic meaning &#8212; figures which one could use to work out transportation loads, plan neighbourhoods with appropriate residential and other typologies?<br />
what works?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Zack</title>
		<link>http://pedshed.net/?p=131&#038;cpage=1#comment-4683</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Zack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:19:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pedshed.net/?p=131#comment-4683</guid>
		<description>Brilliant. Thank you so much for dispelling these myths. The misuse of density statistics has bugged me for quite some time, and I&#039;m glad you shed light on the subject in such an eloquent and thorough way!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Brilliant. Thank you so much for dispelling these myths. The misuse of density statistics has bugged me for quite some time, and I&#8217;m glad you shed light on the subject in such an eloquent and thorough way!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laurence Aurbach</title>
		<link>http://pedshed.net/?p=131&#038;cpage=1#comment-2193</link>
		<dc:creator>Laurence Aurbach</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 18:06:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pedshed.net/?p=131#comment-2193</guid>
		<description>I think you&#039;re right about that. Just a few hundred miles from the U.S. are several nations whose rural populations use buses for most of their transportation. They&#039;ll commonly walk a mile or so to catch a bus.

Even in the U.S. the quarter-mile rule of thumb is too short in some contexts. &lt;a href=&quot;http://waddle.uoregon.edu/?id=700&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Recent research&lt;/a&gt; by Schlossberg et al. found the mean distance pedestrians will walk to a light rail station is half a mile, especially if the route is convenient, safe and pleasant.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you&#8217;re right about that. Just a few hundred miles from the U.S. are several nations whose rural populations use buses for most of their transportation. They&#8217;ll commonly walk a mile or so to catch a bus.</p>
<p>Even in the U.S. the quarter-mile rule of thumb is too short in some contexts. <a href="http://waddle.uoregon.edu/?id=700" rel="nofollow">Recent research</a> by Schlossberg et al. found the mean distance pedestrians will walk to a light rail station is half a mile, especially if the route is convenient, safe and pleasant.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moshe Braner</title>
		<link>http://pedshed.net/?p=131&#038;cpage=1#comment-2137</link>
		<dc:creator>Moshe Braner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:31:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pedshed.net/?p=131#comment-2137</guid>
		<description>It should also be noted that density needed to support bus service is based on assumptions on how far people will walk to a bus stop.  If they&#039;d walk (or bike) twice as far, then the number of people within walking distance of a bus route is doubled.  The walking distance will likely increase along with fuel prices.  Even more importantly, behind the standard numbers there are assumptions about the percentage of people who will ride the bus if it were available.  When fuel prices get high enough, we&#039;ll find that existing transit capacity is overwhelmed.  Since getting additional busses will be a bottleneck, and also for the sake of more flexible transit, I expect that the future of public transit is the jitney.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It should also be noted that density needed to support bus service is based on assumptions on how far people will walk to a bus stop.  If they&#8217;d walk (or bike) twice as far, then the number of people within walking distance of a bus route is doubled.  The walking distance will likely increase along with fuel prices.  Even more importantly, behind the standard numbers there are assumptions about the percentage of people who will ride the bus if it were available.  When fuel prices get high enough, we&#8217;ll find that existing transit capacity is overwhelmed.  Since getting additional busses will be a bottleneck, and also for the sake of more flexible transit, I expect that the future of public transit is the jitney.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
