The guy in New Scientist was completely misled. I know of Space Syntax
quite a bit by association and it does not even pretend to replace
conventional traffic modelling techniques, when they are required. What it
claims is that the organisation of space ALSO gives some clues to explain
movements, but as far as I recall it works far better with pedestrian than
with vehicular movements.
I know Professor Bill Hillier at the Bartlett School quite well and I am
sure he would be a little bit worried by this claim (unless he wrote the
article of course!).
Cheers,
J de D Ortuzar
Professor of Transport Engineering
A 05:44 PM 15/11/99 -0600, ha escrito:
>From: "Shaw, John" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Cross-posted from the UTSG list. The article in question can be found
>online at http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19991113/wellconnec.html .
>
>(New Scientist is roughly the British equivalent of Scientific American).
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: stephen marshall [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 5:28 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: New Scientist - Space Syntax
>
>
>This week's New Scientist throws down an interesting challenge to transport
>modellers in its cover feature article "Well Connected", describing the
>Space Syntax method.
>
>The article implicitly criticises conventional engineers' techniques - based
>on "hugely expensive surveys", gravity models and "fudge factors" - which
>often lead to unreliable forecasts for traffic in urban areas.
>
>In contrast, space syntax uses only network parameters - the spatial
>arrangement of the network, sometimes in combination with road width -
using no OD type data at all. This method has been used to explain both
traffic
>'generation' - of vehicular and pedestrian movement - and degeneration. For
>example, it is claimed that the method can account for "more than 80% of the
>variation in traffic from street to street".
>
>It would be interesting to learn of traffic modellers' opinions of this
>method and the implications of its potential use. Is it fundamentally
>irreconcilable with conventional approaches, or can the two approaches learn
>something from each other?
>
>stephen marshall
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Messages to the list should be sent to [log in to unmask]
>
>You may unsubscribe by sending a blank message to
>[log in to unmask]
>
>You can change to digest mode by sending a blank message to
>[log in to unmask]
>
>You can change back to normal mode by sending a blank
>message to [log in to unmask]
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
Juan de Dios Ortuzar e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Departamento de Ingenieria de Transporte
Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
Casilla 306, Cod. 105, Santiago 22, Chile
Tel: 56-2-686 4822 Fax: 56-2-553 0281
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|