When It Comes to Successful Transit, Density Is Not Destiny

There's a maxim in the planning world that public transit is simply less effective at lower densities.

But is that always the case? And what exactly do we mean when we talk about "low density"? In a post today on Human Transit, Jarrett Walker argues that the way we talk about and measure density can obscure more important factors that determine the success or failure of transit.

Walker uses the recently published Transport for Suburbia, by Paul Mees, as his jumping-off point. Mees argues that the conventional wisdom runs counter to the objectives of transit advocates because it advances the idea that low density areas must accept car dependence as inevitable. In one of the more provocative sections of the book, Mees points out that if you measure the metro areas of Vancouver and Las Vegas, Vancouver is, on average, less dense, but has a much higher share of trips on transit.

Walker explains that one reason for the disparity is that Vegas-style density and urban design interfere with high-quality transit:

Elsewhere on the Network today: Tacoma Tomorrow calls out the city for failing to follow through on the sustainability aspects of its laudable Mobility Master Plan. The Transport Politic discusses how the recession is squeezing transit expansion plans across the country. And the Ohio Bike Lawyer argues that "Share the Road" signs marginalize cyclists and misrepresent their rights.