From: Rod Speed on
Ron Peterson wrote:
> alexy <nos...(a)asbry.net> wrote

>>> Is there a non-Cartesian grid pattern for a flat community that
>>> does better for the worst case than the Cartesian grid pattern?

>> With streets laid out in equilateral triangles, the worst case is a
>> 75% longer (actually sqrt(3)-1) trip, but unlike the square blocks,
>> the potential inefficiency doesn't decrease with distance. So the
>> triangles are better for short trips, but worse for long ones.

> I found http://www.automatedtransport.com/htmlv04.html
> which shows a triangular diamond grid pattern in illustration 10.

Trouble is those 8 way intersections just arent practical with roads.


From: Ron Peterson on
On May 20, 12:36 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> Trouble is those 8 way intersections just arent practical with roads.

Frank Blackmore invented a way to handle those intersections.

--
Ron
From: Rod Speed on
Ron Peterson wrote:
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....(a)gmail.com> wrote
>> Ron Peterson wrote:
>>> alexy <nos...(a)asbry.net> wrote

>>>>> Is there a non-Cartesian grid pattern for a flat community that
>>>>> does better for the worst case than the Cartesian grid pattern?

>>>> With streets laid out in equilateral triangles, the worst case is a
>>>> 75% longer (actually sqrt(3)-1) trip, but unlike the square blocks,
>>>> the potential inefficiency doesn't decrease with distance. So the
>>>> triangles are better for short trips, but worse for long ones.

>>> I found http://www.automatedtransport.com/htmlv04.html
>>> which shows a triangular diamond grid pattern in illustration 10.

>> Trouble is those 8 way intersections just arent practical with roads.

> Frank Blackmore invented a way to handle those intersections.

But no one cares enough about a reduction
in a small percentage of travel times to bother.

Even just the buildings on those corners are a major downside.

And the extra cost for the roads isnt warranted either.