|
|
Post by Gokhan on May 16, 2012 11:37:06 GMT -8
This is an interesting mathematical study of the rail-transit lines. Conclusion is that all rail-transit lines are evolving toward the same mathematical parameters, such as the geometries and station distribution. World’s subways converging on ideal form |
|
|
|
Post by bluelineshawn on May 16, 2012 18:38:12 GMT -8
It's fairly intuitively obvious that depending on how "city center" is defined, that a center city will have both more people and more stations, but the non-center will be larger and with fewer people and stations. 50-50 sounds about right. But it's also a quirk of how cities are usually built with a dense core with decreasing density radiating outward. LA would be an exception to this rule, although I'm sure that they could make the model fit for LA as well by defining city center to make it work.
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 17, 2012 2:47:03 GMT -8
It's fairly intuitively obvious that depending on how "city center" is defined, that a center city will have both more people and more stations, but the non-center will be larger and with fewer people and stations. 50-50 sounds about right. But it's also a quirk of how cities are usually built with a dense core with decreasing density radiating outward. LA would be an exception to this rule, although I'm sure that they could make the model fit for LA as well by defining city center to make it work. I don't think they defined the city center as such. They just looked at the connectivity of the network. The center is where you have multiple interconnecting lines and the edge is where you have radially connected lines. |
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 17, 2012 14:00:15 GMT -8
Los Angeles isn't as much of a game breaker as one might think. The city DOES have a center, and lo and behold, that's where the Red/ Purple, Blue and Gold lines converge.
We do have an unusually large "suburban" area, with a few attention-grabbing "satellite" hubs, but it still makes economic sense for Metro to aim lines toward the "middle"
|
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on May 18, 2012 1:35:13 GMT -8
My interpretation is that for LA's system to match the statistics of other successful systems in the world, that it would need to have some more connections outside downtown, such as the Crenshaw line and extensions to Hollywood, a Vermont line, etc. Right now, it's pretty much only hub and spoke. It's not possible to do a circuit (only on rail) where you go from one station back to itself without going through the same station twice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elson on May 18, 2012 5:11:58 GMT -8
Now don't count us out just yet. Remember, our system is still a youngin' at 22 years. Our "center" might be a simple branch line through Downtown, but now add the Regional Connector, and you have a new set of stations in DTLA, AND re-aligned radial lines -- The Gold Line no longer a "C"-shaped line that runs on the outskirts of the center, but defined north-south and east-west routes.
Now there's the West Santa Ana corridor which plans to eventually interface with Union Station. It wouldn't surprise me to see that line have stops serving the east/southeast sectors of DTLA. And if you add the streetcar to the equation, the number of rail stations in the center increases even more...
|
|
