me and @theHeizer published a paper about PARKING! us: "should a city ensure that parking is readily available [at all destinations] or ensure that more space is devoted to useful ends like amenities and housing [thus making travel by car harder]?" https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1cB9-iuWn1A9G 
transport networks are often conceived as links between places. but networks are, themselves, places requiring land—either a *lot* (like cars) or much less (like trains). a city's choice about modes is *directly* a choice about land use: can't drive a car without a place to park!
the knock on effects of making one choice or the other are huge. Manhattan's 23 square miles are home to 1.6 million people, most of whom walk/use transit. but Phoenix's 1.6 million people live in FIVE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEEN SQUARE MILES; of which ~180 is parking and roadways

🤢
in this paper we write a simple model that captures this tradeoff, and ask what would happen if Phoenix banned cars? if it made no changes to land use, the answer is simple: everyone would leave. even with the train!

BUT that's not the end of the story—banning cars opens up land
what about once we allow densification of housing and amenities on the former parking? well—most people still leave. but in our model, phoenix still has over 300,000 people living a car-free live there. and that's withOUT adding further train lines!
adding more housing to current cities make congestion bad, and adding new trains to current cities often results in low ridership (see @ChrisSeveren's work). but a big push of housing on former parking + transit seems more promising!
also this is my first published planning article and so i'm officially a planner now wooh 🌆🚉🚎👩‍🦽🏘️
You can follow @devin_mb.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.