3 ms·
I don't understand why the author chose to kink the subways to preserve the same orientation in each satellite. Those corners are going to slow down trains and
by aphyr 15y ago
I don't understand why the author chose to kink the subways to preserve the same orientation in each satellite. Those corners are going to slow down trains and impose more wear, which means more failures. It also adds a huge amount of track (and associated road crossings, safety infrastructure, maintenance personnel, etc.) and trip time. This plan already abandons the rectilinear grid system in favor of circular roads; I don't see a reason to preserve the rail system's north-south axis in every city.
[edit] I should mention that overall, I quite like the design. It looks to me like you've arranged the space at a livable scale and with careful attention to the work/live/play cycle of its inhabitants.
- nikhilalmeida 15y agothe major reason was to keep the city structure simple and repeatable, so as to reduce learning. This is one of the issues I found when my parents (even friends) visited NYC, the subway maps were too intimidating.
- aphyr 15y agoBut simultaneously, the subcities are not repeatable in that the relationship between the intercity roads and the local infrastructure will be kinked; you need to adapt the circular intercity infrastructure (both the subway and local roads) to the rectilinear grid in three different ways over six satellite cities. That kind of variance may be desirable, but it will make it more difficult to memorize the layout and could introduce awkward kinks. Sometimes the circular perimeter roads will contact the principal city axis; in other cities they won't.