A century-old planning paradigm still embedded in the physical fabric of suburbs nationwide is driving a significant share of greenhouse gas emissions.
A bus/train cannot reasonably serve a cul-de-sac. The time needed to get down it and back is robbed from everyone who wants to go elsewhere. There is almost no destinations at the end - even if it has one (as it is in the case of many large office complexs or hospitals), not enough people are going there to be worth the time stolen from everyone else.
If you want good transit you need to be on the way to someplace else. That applies to both your start and destination.
Depends on the length of the cul-de-sac to be honest. It’s not unreasonable to have a bus stop at the entry, if it’s less than 200ish meters away from the furthest home.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
The problem is the cul-de-sac, not mass transit. There’s a mistaken belief in America that the “dream” means having a single family house with a large yard. If we were to move more to mixed use land plots that include condos/apartments, as well as retail it would all become a moot point.
Why does everyone need a yard? Or for that matter, why are so many cul-de-sacs and neighborhoods built and not mixed use?
Linear density is what matters. Large yards that are deep but narrow are just fine if you want a large yard. Transit needs to pick up/drop off within a reasonable distance of the door without unduly delaying other passengers. A wide yard is a much larger problem, a narrow yard that just has with width of a bedroom and stairs+hall allows for plenty of density for great transit.
A hospital, 10 floor apartment complex, or big shopping malls are places high density, but if they are a long distance down a dead end (cul-de-sac) they are harder for transit to serve than straight street in a suburb despite the much lower density in the suburb.
This is important to remember. People asking for density for the sake of density too often end up with something that doesn’t help the cause they want. People who understand what they really want can fight for that, while allowing for less ideal things that are still close enough.
I don’t need a large yard, but there are a lot of nice things about having a large yard that I want. Ideally I want my front door to be on Times Square New York City, with a side door to a Caribbean sea beach, a backdoor to livestock pasture, and the other side a mountain - this is of course impossible, but if you don’t recognize why each of the above would be desirable you need to learn more about the world. Since it is impossible I have to compromise, but the less I compromise the better.
It’s more than just the cul-de-sac. Look at Bose’s comment above about being blocked from the shopping center by everyone having their own fenced in yards. Even if it’s a straight street, adding yards just increases distance and spreads things out further requiring cars.
It doesn’t. What a cul-de-sac gives you is assurance that there is no noisy/dangerous traffic by your house at all hours. A street that a bus can serve is also a street where lots of cars will be going by (or at least want to go by even if not allowed)
A bus/train cannot reasonably serve a cul-de-sac. The time needed to get down it and back is robbed from everyone who wants to go elsewhere. There is almost no destinations at the end - even if it has one (as it is in the case of many large office complexs or hospitals), not enough people are going there to be worth the time stolen from everyone else.
If you want good transit you need to be on the way to someplace else. That applies to both your start and destination.
Depends on the length of the cul-de-sac to be honest. It’s not unreasonable to have a bus stop at the entry, if it’s less than 200ish meters away from the furthest home.
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)
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.
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.
We still have legs. It’s not that hard to walk 400m.
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.
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.
The problem is the cul-de-sac, not mass transit. There’s a mistaken belief in America that the “dream” means having a single family house with a large yard. If we were to move more to mixed use land plots that include condos/apartments, as well as retail it would all become a moot point.
Why does everyone need a yard? Or for that matter, why are so many cul-de-sacs and neighborhoods built and not mixed use?
Linear density is what matters. Large yards that are deep but narrow are just fine if you want a large yard. Transit needs to pick up/drop off within a reasonable distance of the door without unduly delaying other passengers. A wide yard is a much larger problem, a narrow yard that just has with width of a bedroom and stairs+hall allows for plenty of density for great transit.
A hospital, 10 floor apartment complex, or big shopping malls are places high density, but if they are a long distance down a dead end (cul-de-sac) they are harder for transit to serve than straight street in a suburb despite the much lower density in the suburb.
This is important to remember. People asking for density for the sake of density too often end up with something that doesn’t help the cause they want. People who understand what they really want can fight for that, while allowing for less ideal things that are still close enough.
I don’t need a large yard, but there are a lot of nice things about having a large yard that I want. Ideally I want my front door to be on Times Square New York City, with a side door to a Caribbean sea beach, a backdoor to livestock pasture, and the other side a mountain - this is of course impossible, but if you don’t recognize why each of the above would be desirable you need to learn more about the world. Since it is impossible I have to compromise, but the less I compromise the better.
I don’t know why a yard would require a cul-de-sac.
It’s more than just the cul-de-sac. Look at Bose’s comment above about being blocked from the shopping center by everyone having their own fenced in yards. Even if it’s a straight street, adding yards just increases distance and spreads things out further requiring cars.
It doesn’t. What a cul-de-sac gives you is assurance that there is no noisy/dangerous traffic by your house at all hours. A street that a bus can serve is also a street where lots of cars will be going by (or at least want to go by even if not allowed)