<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Twice the Volume, One Third the Space</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.howwedrive.com/2008/11/17/twice-the-volume-one-third-the-space/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.howwedrive.com/2008/11/17/twice-the-volume-one-third-the-space/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 2010 01:40:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: jon seward</title>
		<link>http://www.howwedrive.com/2008/11/17/twice-the-volume-one-third-the-space/#comment-2810</link>
		<dc:creator>jon seward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:44:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=418#comment-2810</guid>
		<description>This graphic is instructive, but somewhat misleading.  What it truly shows is that pedestrians are very spatially efficient.  

It would be an error to say that space should be allocated simply on the basis of the ratio of users of various types.  And at some point there is such a thing as too much room for pedestrians, but we aren't there yet.

IIRC, Holly Whyte, in CITY, mentioned a section of Lexington Ave on the Upper East Side with an eight foot effective width processing either 3,000 or 8,000 peds/hr.  And doing a fine job of being a sidewalk/streetscape.

I wouldn't consider that an idealized outcome.  But it does show how flexible pedestrians are, and it also suggests that there is value to certain levels of pedestrian congestion or propinquity.

Christian, I agree.  Atrios also touches on the subject relatively frequently, though it's hard to say what level of discourse he manifests from it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This graphic is instructive, but somewhat misleading.  What it truly shows is that pedestrians are very spatially efficient.  </p>
<p>It would be an error to say that space should be allocated simply on the basis of the ratio of users of various types.  And at some point there is such a thing as too much room for pedestrians, but we aren&#8217;t there yet.</p>
<p>IIRC, Holly Whyte, in CITY, mentioned a section of Lexington Ave on the Upper East Side with an eight foot effective width processing either 3,000 or 8,000 peds/hr.  And doing a fine job of being a sidewalk/streetscape.</p>
<p>I wouldn&#8217;t consider that an idealized outcome.  But it does show how flexible pedestrians are, and it also suggests that there is value to certain levels of pedestrian congestion or propinquity.</p>
<p>Christian, I agree.  Atrios also touches on the subject relatively frequently, though it&#8217;s hard to say what level of discourse he manifests from it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Monnier</title>
		<link>http://www.howwedrive.com/2008/11/17/twice-the-volume-one-third-the-space/#comment-2704</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Monnier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 04:06:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.howwedrive.com/?p=418#comment-2704</guid>
		<description>There was a good discussion about vehicle throughput vs. people throughput on Matt Yglesias' blog &lt;a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/people_not_vehicles.php" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There was a good discussion about vehicle throughput vs. people throughput on Matt Yglesias&#8217; blog <a href="http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/people_not_vehicles.php" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
