City road networks grow like biological systems

[Jack May]

Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.

Rail obviously does not grow this way because it is not capable of
implementing most required characteristics of large, scalable system
structures as roads do.

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13759-city-road-networks-grow-like-biological-systems.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news7_head_dn13759
"French and US physicists have shown that the road networks in cities evolve
driven by a simple universal mechanism despite significant cultural and
historical differences. The resulting patterns are much like the veins of a
leaf."

"Marc Barthélemy of the French Atomic Energy Commission in
Bruyères-le-Châtel and Alessandro Flammini of Indiana University, US,
analyzed street pattern data from roughly 300 cities, including Brasilia,
Cairo, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Venice."

"They found that cities' road patterns have a lot in common mathematically,
as well as looking similar to the eye."

"The main influence on the simulated network as it grows is the need to
efficiently connect new areas to the existing road network - a process they
call "local optimization". They say the road patterns in cities evolve
thanks to similar local efforts, as people try to connect houses, businesses
and other infrastructures to existing roads."

"Cities are not just the result of rational planning - in the same way that
living organisms are not simply what is in their genetic code," Barthélemy
told New Scientist.

"Previous models of urban development assumed that efficient transport
across the entire network motivated the system's growth - as if planned from
the top down. Focusing instead on the structure of local connections seems
truer to real life, says Flammini."

"Using the local efficiency of connections to drive road network growth
looks to be a truer fit with reality than using the total cost of traveling
across the network, says Onnela. "Especially given that the time scale of
city growth (possibly thousands of years) and the time scale of urban
planning (perhaps tens of years) are so clearly different."

[Pat]

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.
Rail obviously does not grow this way because it is not capable of
implementing most required characteristics of large, scalable system
structures as roads do.
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13759-city-road-networks...
"French and US physicists have shown that the road networks in cities evolve
driven by a simple universal mechanism despite significant cultural and
historical differences. The resulting patterns are much like the veins of a
leaf."
"Marc Barthélemy of the French Atomic Energy Commission in
Bruyères-le-Châtel and Alessandro Flammini of Indiana University, US,
analyzed street pattern data from roughly 300 cities, including Brasilia,
Cairo, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Venice."
"They found that cities' road patterns have a lot in common mathematically,
as well as looking similar to the eye."
"The main influence on the simulated network as it grows is the need to
efficiently connect new areas to the existing road network - a process they
call "local optimization". They say the road patterns in cities evolve
thanks to similar local efforts, as people try to connect houses, businesses
and other infrastructures to existing roads."
"Cities are not just the result of rational planning - in the same way that
living organisms are not simply what is in their genetic code," Barthélemy
told New Scientist.
"Previous models of urban development assumed that efficient transport
across the entire network motivated the system's growth - as if planned from
the top down. Focusing instead on the structure of local connections seems
truer to real life, says Flammini."
"Using the local efficiency of connections to drive road network growth
looks to be a truer fit with reality than using the total cost of traveling
across the network, says Onnela. "Especially given that the time scale of
city growth (possibly thousands of years) and the time scale of urban
planning (perhaps tens of years) are so clearly different."

It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it. Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.

[Mike Tantillo]

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.
Rail obviously does not grow this way because it is not capable of
implementing most required characteristics of large, scalable system
structures as roads do.
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13759-city-road-networks...
"French and US physicists have shown that the road networks in cities evolve
driven by a simple universal mechanism despite significant cultural and
historical differences. The resulting patterns are much like the veins of a
leaf."
"Marc Barthélemy of the French Atomic Energy Commission in
Bruyères-le-Châtel and Alessandro Flammini of Indiana University, US,
analyzed street pattern data from roughly 300 cities, including Brasilia,
Cairo, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Venice."
"They found that cities' road patterns have a lot in common mathematically,
as well as looking similar to the eye."
"The main influence on the simulated network as it grows is the need to
efficiently connect new areas to the existing road network - a process they
call "local optimization". They say the road patterns in cities evolve
thanks to similar local efforts, as people try to connect houses, businesses
and other infrastructures to existing roads."
"Cities are not just the result of rational planning - in the same way that
living organisms are not simply what is in their genetic code," Barthélemy
told New Scientist.
"Previous models of urban development assumed that efficient transport
across the entire network motivated the system's growth - as if planned from
the top down. Focusing instead on the structure of local connections seems
truer to real life, says Flammini."
"Using the local efficiency of connections to drive road network growth
looks to be a truer fit with reality than using the total cost of traveling
across the network, says Onnela. "Especially given that the time scale of
city growth (possibly thousands of years) and the time scale of urban
planning (perhaps tens of years) are so clearly different."

It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it.  Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.

Horrible over-generalization. Come to Washington DC sometime and
compare the development along I-270 vs. the development along MD 4 or
MD 5.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Mike Tantillo

Post by Pat

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.
Rail obviously does not grow this way because it is not capable of
implementing most required characteristics of large, scalable system
structures as roads do.
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13759-city-road-networks...
"French and US physicists have shown that the road networks in cities evolve
driven by a simple universal mechanism despite significant cultural and
historical differences. The resulting patterns are much like the veins of a
leaf."
"Marc Barthélemy of the French Atomic Energy Commission in
Bruyères-le-Châtel and Alessandro Flammini of Indiana University, US,
analyzed street pattern data from roughly 300 cities, including Brasilia,
Cairo, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Venice."
"They found that cities' road patterns have a lot in common mathematically,
as well as looking similar to the eye."
"The main influence on the simulated network as it grows is the need to
efficiently connect new areas to the existing road network - a process they
call "local optimization". They say the road patterns in cities evolve
thanks to similar local efforts, as people try to connect houses, businesses
and other infrastructures to existing roads."
"Cities are not just the result of rational planning - in the same way that
living organisms are not simply what is in their genetic code," Barthélemy
told New Scientist.
"Previous models of urban development assumed that efficient transport
across the entire network motivated the system's growth - as if planned from
the top down. Focusing instead on the structure of local connections seems
truer to real life, says Flammini."
"Using the local efficiency of connections to drive road network growth
looks to be a truer fit with reality than using the total cost of traveling
across the network, says Onnela. "Especially given that the time scale of
city growth (possibly thousands of years) and the time scale of urban
planning (perhaps tens of years) are so clearly different."

It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it. Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.

Horrible over-generalization. Come to Washington DC sometime and
compare the development along I-270 vs. the development along MD 4 or
MD 5.

I believe it is a reasonable generalization only on the east coast of
the U.S., and it's really a historic peculiarity. It's because
prevailing wind currents blow from the northwest, causing soot from
northwest to fall in the southeast. That's why nearly every major east
coast city has its wealthy neighborhood in the northwest to this day
(that's changing - New York's priciest ZIP code is now Battery Park, I
believe).

[Rothman]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.
Rail obviously does not grow this way because it is not capable of
implementing most required characteristics of large, scalable system
structures as roads do.
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13759-city-road-networks...
"French and US physicists have shown that the road networks in cities evolve
driven by a simple universal mechanism despite significant cultural and
historical differences. The resulting patterns are much like the veins of a
leaf."
"Marc Barthélemy of the French Atomic Energy Commission in
Bruyères-le-Châtel and Alessandro Flammini of Indiana University, US,
analyzed street pattern data from roughly 300 cities, including Brasilia,
Cairo, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Venice."
"They found that cities' road patterns have a lot in common mathematically,
as well as looking similar to the eye."
"The main influence on the simulated network as it grows is the need to
efficiently connect new areas to the existing road network - a process they
call "local optimization". They say the road patterns in cities evolve
thanks to similar local efforts, as people try to connect houses, businesses
and other infrastructures to existing roads."
"Cities are not just the result of rational planning - in the same way that
living organisms are not simply what is in their genetic code," Barthélemy
told New Scientist.
"Previous models of urban development assumed that efficient transport
across the entire network motivated the system's growth - as if planned from
the top down. Focusing instead on the structure of local connections seems
truer to real life, says Flammini."
"Using the local efficiency of connections to drive road network growth
looks to be a truer fit with reality than using the total cost of traveling
across the network, says Onnela. "Especially given that the time scale of
city growth (possibly thousands of years) and the time scale of urban
planning (perhaps tens of years) are so clearly different."

It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it.  Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.

Horrible over-generalization.  Come to Washington DC sometime and
compare the development along I-270  vs. the development along MD 4 or
MD 5.

I believe it is a reasonable generalization only on the east coast of
the U.S., and it's really a historic peculiarity.  It's because
prevailing wind currents blow from the northwest, causing soot from
northwest to fall in the southeast.  That's why nearly every major east
coast city has its wealthy neighborhood in the northwest to this day
(that's changing - New York's priciest ZIP code is now Battery Park, I
believe).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I'd like to see the regression that narrowed the causes down to the
"soot" factor.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Rothman
I'd like to see the regression that narrowed the causes down
to the "soot" factor.

=v= Regression? There you go, getting all Gaussian on us again.
Don't you realize that there's no Gauss in any of this? That
it's all some sort of s00per d00per large system that mere
mortals couldn't possibly understand? Only Jack May understands
it. He hasn't been able to explain the mathematical concepts
underlying it, only the 1:1 correlation that results:

Four wheels good.
Everything else BAD! BAD! BAD!


=v= I guess we're all just too feeble-minded for an explanation.
That's why Jack May spends his time insulting us about our
feeble minds rather than showing the multi-dimensional math
that only an Uebermensch brain like his could possibly grasp.
<_Jym_>

[Bolwerk]

Post by Rothman

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Mike Tantillo

Post by Pat

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.
Rail obviously does not grow this way because it is not capable of
implementing most required characteristics of large, scalable system
structures as roads do.
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13759-city-road-networks...
"French and US physicists have shown that the road networks in cities evolve
driven by a simple universal mechanism despite significant cultural and
historical differences. The resulting patterns are much like the veins of a
leaf."
"Marc Barthélemy of the French Atomic Energy Commission in
Bruyères-le-Châtel and Alessandro Flammini of Indiana University, US,
analyzed street pattern data from roughly 300 cities, including Brasilia,
Cairo, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Venice."
"They found that cities' road patterns have a lot in common mathematically,
as well as looking similar to the eye."
"The main influence on the simulated network as it grows is the need to
efficiently connect new areas to the existing road network - a process they
call "local optimization". They say the road patterns in cities evolve
thanks to similar local efforts, as people try to connect houses, businesses
and other infrastructures to existing roads."
"Cities are not just the result of rational planning - in the same way that
living organisms are not simply what is in their genetic code," Barthélemy
told New Scientist.
"Previous models of urban development assumed that efficient transport
across the entire network motivated the system's growth - as if planned from
the top down. Focusing instead on the structure of local connections seems
truer to real life, says Flammini."
"Using the local efficiency of connections to drive road network growth
looks to be a truer fit with reality than using the total cost of traveling
across the network, says Onnela. "Especially given that the time scale of
city growth (possibly thousands of years) and the time scale of urban
planning (perhaps tens of years) are so clearly different."

It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it. Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.

Horrible over-generalization. Come to Washington DC sometime and
compare the development along I-270 vs. the development along MD 4 or
MD 5.

I believe it is a reasonable generalization only on the east coast of
the U.S., and it's really a historic peculiarity. It's because
prevailing wind currents blow from the northwest, causing soot from
northwest to fall in the southeast. That's why nearly every major east
coast city has its wealthy neighborhood in the northwest to this day
(that's changing - New York's priciest ZIP code is now Battery Park, I
believe).- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I'd like to see the regression that narrowed the causes down to the
"soot" factor.

Heh, I dunno. That was one of those platitudes you learn in sociology
101 ;)

The soot factor is historical, of course.

[Paul D. DeRocco]

I believe it is a reasonable generalization only on the east coast of the
U.S., and it's really a historic peculiarity. It's because prevailing
wind currents blow from the northwest, causing soot from northwest to fall
in the southeast. That's why nearly every major east coast city has its
wealthy neighborhood in the northwest to this day (that's changing - New
York's priciest ZIP code is now Battery Park, I believe).

Well, many plants also grow in ways that adapt to the prevailing winds.
Q.E.D.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Paul D. DeRocco

I believe it is a reasonable generalization only on the east coast of the
U.S., and it's really a historic peculiarity. It's because prevailing
wind currents blow from the northwest, causing soot from northwest to fall
in the southeast. That's why nearly every major east coast city has its
wealthy neighborhood in the northwest to this day (that's changing - New
York's priciest ZIP code is now Battery Park, I believe).

Well, many plants also grow in ways that adapt to the prevailing winds.
Q.E.D.

Do you know why the trees bend at the West Texas border?

[Bill]

"Pat" <***@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message news:c3d8a649-c077-4c4c-b811-***@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it. Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.

Do you have a source for that. I've always heard that most cities grow to
the north, and my personal observation agrees with that.

- B

[Laurence Sheldon]

Post by Pat
It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it. Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.
Do you have a source for that. I've always heard that most cities grow to
the north, and my personal observation agrees with that.

That assertion is silly on the face of it.

It might have some merit if you were talking about "metro area" or
something, but I doubt it.

The Council Bluffs - Omaha - Sarpy County metro is growing every way but
down.

Omaha has got a river and a state boundary to the East, Council Bluffs
one to the west.

[John Lansford]

Post by Pat
It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it. Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.
Do you have a source for that. I've always heard that most cities grow to
the north, and my personal observation agrees with that.

It's historical; in the US most prevailing winds blow east-west. When
cities were growing the "low rent" side was always the east side,
because that would be where all the smells, garbage, and other
unpleasant things a city makes would end up being located. Growing
north/south avoids being in someone else's downwind odor plume, too.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/

[Larry Harvilla]

Post by John Lansford

Post by Pat
It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it. Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.
Do you have a source for that. I've always heard that most cities grow to
the north, and my personal observation agrees with that.

It's historical; in the US most prevailing winds blow east-west. When
cities were growing the "low rent" side was always the east side,
because that would be where all the smells, garbage, and other
unpleasant things a city makes would end up being located. Growing
north/south avoids being in someone else's downwind odor plume, too.

Prevailing wind direction actually seems to be quite dependent on the
region of the U.S. in question. For example, here in the Midwest, our
prevailing winds tend not to be east-west, but rather north-south. A
look at many Midwestern cities shows that the nicer areas are generally
north of the city centers, and the less desirable areas are generally to
the south:

Detroit -- Oakland County (über-rich suburbs) north, Downriver
(working-class) and the ghetto of SW Detroit to the south

Columbus -- all the growth to the north, sewerage facilities and
incinerators to the south

Milwaukee -- nicest areas north, not so nice south

Chicago -- the South Side is notorious for a reason

Indianapolis -- stretches much farther north than south, with all the
heavy industry concentrated south

Cincinnati -- kind of fits the pattern, although there is a river
immediately to the south of downtown, and across the river is another
state. That said, the KY side is a bit more working-class, particularly
right along the river.

Cleveland is one of the few that doesn't fit the pattern, what with Lake
Erie to the north. The nicer parts of metro Cleveland seem to be east
and west -- farther away from the Cuyahoga River.

[Laurence Sheldon]

Post by Larry Harvilla

Post by John Lansford

Post by Pat
It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it. Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.
Do you have a source for that. I've always heard that most cities grow to
the north, and my personal observation agrees with that.

It's historical; in the US most prevailing winds blow east-west. When
cities were growing the "low rent" side was always the east side,
because that would be where all the smells, garbage, and other
unpleasant things a city makes would end up being located. Growing
north/south avoids being in someone else's downwind odor plume, too.

Consider this, and then read all of this again: Most of the rivers run
north-to-south. Most of the towns that built sewage plants, built them
down-stream of town to get them away from the freshwater intakes. (Yes,
I see the "connection", but apparently they didn't.)

And I'd like to see some citations on the wind direction thing--seems
to be north-south although the storms mostly travel from west to east.

Post by Larry Harvilla
Prevailing wind direction actually seems to be quite dependent on the
region of the U.S. in question. For example, here in the Midwest, our
prevailing winds tend not to be east-west, but rather north-south. A
look at many Midwestern cities shows that the nicer areas are generally
north of the city centers, and the less desirable areas are generally to
Detroit -- Oakland County (über-rich suburbs) north, Downriver
(working-class) and the ghetto of SW Detroit to the south
Columbus -- all the growth to the north, sewerage facilities and
incinerators to the south
Milwaukee -- nicest areas north, not so nice south
Chicago -- the South Side is notorious for a reason
Indianapolis -- stretches much farther north than south, with all the
heavy industry concentrated south
Cincinnati -- kind of fits the pattern, although there is a river
immediately to the south of downtown, and across the river is another
state. That said, the KY side is a bit more working-class, particularly
right along the river.
Cleveland is one of the few that doesn't fit the pattern, what with Lake
Erie to the north. The nicer parts of metro Cleveland seem to be east
and west -- farther away from the Cuyahoga River.

[Pat]

Post by Larry Harvilla

It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it.  Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.
Do you have a source for that. I've always heard that most cities grow to
the north, and my personal observation agrees with that.

It's historical; in the US most prevailing winds blow east-west.  When
cities were growing the "low rent" side was always the east side,
because that would be where all the smells, garbage, and other
unpleasant things a city makes would end up being located.  Growing
north/south avoids being in someone else's downwind odor plume, too.

Consider this, and then read all of this again:  Most of the rivers run
north-to-south.  Most of the towns that built sewage plants, built them
down-stream of town to get them away from the freshwater intakes.  (Yes,
I see the "connection", but apparently they didn't.)
And I'd like to see some citations on the wind  direction thing--seems
to be north-south although the storms mostly travel from west to east.

Post by Larry Harvilla
Prevailing wind direction actually seems to be quite dependent on the
region of the U.S. in question. For example, here in the Midwest, our
prevailing winds tend not to be east-west, but rather north-south. A
look at many Midwestern cities shows that the nicer areas are generally
north of the city centers, and the less desirable areas are generally to
Detroit -- Oakland County (über-rich suburbs) north, Downriver
(working-class) and the ghetto of SW Detroit to the south
Columbus -- all the growth to the north, sewerage facilities and
incinerators to the south
Milwaukee -- nicest areas north, not so nice south
Chicago -- the South Side is notorious for a reason
Indianapolis -- stretches much farther north than south, with all the
heavy industry concentrated south
Cincinnati -- kind of fits the pattern, although there is a river
immediately to the south of downtown, and across the river is another
state. That said, the KY side is a bit more working-class, particularly
right along the river.
Cleveland is one of the few that doesn't fit the pattern, what with Lake
Erie to the north. The nicer parts of metro Cleveland seem to be east
and west -- farther away from the Cuyahoga River.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have read the article since grad school, but the reason the believe
it happens has nothing to do with soot or wind -- most soot problems
were solved years ago. The issue is the sun. No one want to drive
into work facing the sun. Living to the south-east lets you drive
both ways without having to face into the sun.

[Floyd Rogers]

And I'd like to see some citations on the wind direction thing--seems to
be north-south although the storms mostly travel from west to east.

Post by Larry Harvilla
Prevailing wind direction actually seems to be quite dependent on the
region of the U.S. in question. For example, here in the Midwest, our
prevailing winds tend not to be east-west, but rather north-south. A
look at many Midwestern cities shows that the nicer areas are generally
north of the city centers, and the less desirable areas are generally to

http://www.weather.com/maps/activity/aviation/uscurrentsurfacewinds_large.html
Shows current surface winds. A better choice might be winds aloft (which
is also available at weather.com), which shows the prevailing pattern,
although it's modified by the upper-level highs & lows (jet stream is
dependent upon them, too.)

Considering that a Nor'Easter is a (generally) aberrant situation, the
westerly flow is generally true, even in the plain states. However, the
plain states are heavily influenced by the continental high pressure
systems.

FloydR (Paraglider Pilot, intermediate rating)

[Bolwerk]

Post by Laurence Sheldon

Post by Larry Harvilla

Post by John Lansford

Post by Pat
It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it. Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.
Do you have a source for that. I've always heard that most cities
grow to the north, and my personal observation agrees with that.

It's historical; in the US most prevailing winds blow east-west. When
cities were growing the "low rent" side was always the east side,
because that would be where all the smells, garbage, and other
unpleasant things a city makes would end up being located. Growing
north/south avoids being in someone else's downwind odor plume, too.

Consider this, and then read all of this again: Most of the rivers run
north-to-south. Most of the towns that built sewage plants, built them
down-stream of town to get them away from the freshwater intakes. (Yes,
I see the "connection", but apparently they didn't.)
And I'd like to see some citations on the wind direction thing--seems
to be north-south although the storms mostly travel from west to east.

It varies depending where you are in the country.

http://www.ambientweather.com/cuunstwimap.html

The northwest to southeast thing is an east coast thing:
http://windmapper.com/?Loc=NE

(Those links are the live current directions.)

Post by Laurence Sheldon

Post by Larry Harvilla
Prevailing wind direction actually seems to be quite dependent on the
region of the U.S. in question. For example, here in the Midwest, our
prevailing winds tend not to be east-west, but rather north-south. A
look at many Midwestern cities shows that the nicer areas are generally
north of the city centers, and the less desirable areas are generally to
Detroit -- Oakland County (über-rich suburbs) north, Downriver
(working-class) and the ghetto of SW Detroit to the south
Columbus -- all the growth to the north, sewerage facilities and
incinerators to the south
Milwaukee -- nicest areas north, not so nice south
Chicago -- the South Side is notorious for a reason
Indianapolis -- stretches much farther north than south, with all the
heavy industry concentrated south
Cincinnati -- kind of fits the pattern, although there is a river
immediately to the south of downtown, and across the river is another
state. That said, the KY side is a bit more working-class, particularly
right along the river.
Cleveland is one of the few that doesn't fit the pattern, what with Lake
Erie to the north. The nicer parts of metro Cleveland seem to be east
and west -- farther away from the Cuyahoga River.

[Pat]

It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it.  Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.
Do you have a source for that. I've always heard that most cities grow to
the north, and my personal observation agrees with that.
- B

This info is at least a decade newer than when I last looked at the
situation. Development patterns can change over time. But this is
completely raw data:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1252/

It really isn't possible to analyze without lots of time, resources
and (of course) money because there are a lot of factors that have to
be controlled. Not only do you have to take into account historic
development patterns, but you also have to take into account physical
issues (lakes blocking one direction or expressway going in another),
affluence, schools, and political issues. Plus there's race, poverty
and immigrations.

But as something to look at, hey it's sort of interesting. In the
end, I think you see what you want to see.

[George Conklin]

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.
Rail obviously does not grow this way because it is not capable of
implementing most required characteristics of large, scalable system
structures as roads do.
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13759-city-road-networks...
"French and US physicists have shown that the road networks in cities evolve
driven by a simple universal mechanism despite significant cultural and
historical differences. The resulting patterns are much like the veins of a
leaf."
"Marc Barthélemy of the French Atomic Energy Commission in
Bruyères-le-Châtel and Alessandro Flammini of Indiana University, US,
analyzed street pattern data from roughly 300 cities, including Brasilia,
Cairo, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Venice."
"They found that cities' road patterns have a lot in common

mathematically,

Post by Jack May
as well as looking similar to the eye."
"The main influence on the simulated network as it grows is the need to
efficiently connect new areas to the existing road network - a process they
call "local optimization". They say the road patterns in cities evolve
thanks to similar local efforts, as people try to connect houses, businesses
and other infrastructures to existing roads."
"Cities are not just the result of rational planning - in the same way that
living organisms are not simply what is in their genetic code," Barthélemy
told New Scientist.
"Previous models of urban development assumed that efficient transport
across the entire network motivated the system's growth - as if planned from
the top down. Focusing instead on the structure of local connections seems
truer to real life, says Flammini."
"Using the local efficiency of connections to drive road network growth
looks to be a truer fit with reality than using the total cost of traveling
across the network, says Onnela. "Especially given that the time scale of
city growth (possibly thousands of years) and the time scale of urban
planning (perhaps tens of years) are so clearly different."

It's an interesting concept but there is one problem with it. Whereas
biological structures tend to grow randomly and evenly; cities tend to
grow faster to the south-east and slower to the north-west.

----

Most American cities tend to grow with the best areas north, and no one
knows why.

[Laurence Sheldon]

Post by George Conklin
Most American cities tend to grow with the best areas north, and no one
knows why.

I'm not sure the premise can be defended (seems like we just went
through all of this, am I getting reruns?), but if it is, see comments
elsewhere regarding north-to-south rivers and things like the locations
of water-intake plants, and sewer outfalls.

[George Conklin]

Post by Laurence Sheldon

Post by George Conklin
Most American cities tend to grow with the best areas north, and no one
knows why.

I'm not sure the premise can be defended (seems like we just went
through all of this, am I getting reruns?), but if it is, see comments
elsewhere regarding north-to-south rivers and things like the locations
of water-intake plants, and sewer outfalls.

The noted human ecologist Amos Hawley contended that the northern area of
high prestige on the average (but not all) American cities had never been
satisfactorily explained. If any good reasons have come up since then, they
are not commonly published. It could even be a cultural variable.

[Free Lunch]

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:25:11 -0400, in misc.transport.road

Post by George Conklin

Post by Laurence Sheldon

Post by George Conklin
Most American cities tend to grow with the best areas north, and no one
knows why.

I'm not sure the premise can be defended (seems like we just went
through all of this, am I getting reruns?), but if it is, see comments
elsewhere regarding north-to-south rivers and things like the locations
of water-intake plants, and sewer outfalls.

The noted human ecologist Amos Hawley contended that the northern area of
high prestige on the average (but not all) American cities had never been
satisfactorily explained. If any good reasons have come up since then, they
are not commonly published. It could even be a cultural variable.

It could be economic development. In Chicago or Milwaukee, for instance,
the industrial areas were south of the central business district for a
variety of reasons, some happenstance.

I'm not persuaded, though. It really looks like the person is looking
for the data to fit the preconception.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by George Conklin
The noted human ecologist Amos Hawley contended that the
northern area of high prestige on the average (but not all)
American cities had never been satisfactorily explained.

=v= I guess the Bronx could be said to have high prestige?
(In comparison with Staten Island, that is.)
<_Jym_>

[George Conklin]

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by George Conklin
The noted human ecologist Amos Hawley contended that the
northern area of high prestige on the average (but not all)
American cities had never been satisfactorily explained.

=v= I guess the Bronx could be said to have high prestige?
(In comparison with Staten Island, that is.)
<_Jym_>

Another idiotic response from people who don't even read the original post.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by George Conklin
The noted human ecologist Amos Hawley contended that the
northern area of high prestige on the average (but not all)
American cities had never been satisfactorily explained.

=v= I guess the Bronx could be said to have high prestige?
(In comparison with Staten Island, that is.)
<_Jym_>

Another idiotic response from people who don't even read the original post.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh!

[Jym Dyer]

Post by George Conklin

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= I guess the Bronx could be said to have high prestige?
(In comparison with Staten Island, that is.)

Another idiotic response from people who don't even read
the original post.

=x= Another humor-impaired response from George Conklin.
<_Jym_>

[William]

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by George Conklin

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= I guess the Bronx could be said to have high prestige?
(In comparison with Staten Island, that is.)

Another idiotic response from people who don't even read
the original post.

=x= Another humor-impaired response from George Conklin.
<_Jym_>

At least he knows what we are arguing about.....

[Miles Bader]

Post by William

Post by Jym Dyer
=x= Another humor-impaired response from George Conklin.
<_Jym_>

At least he knows what we are arguing about.....

Hardly. George hasn't had a clue since 1973...

-Miles

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by George Conklin
----
Most American cities tend to grow with the best areas north, and no one
knows why.

Here we know exactly why. It's called the Gulf of Mexico ;-)

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.

Are traffic jams "natural"? Are noise, smog, and pollution above a
major highway "natural"?

[Jack May]

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.
Are traffic jams "natural"? Are noise, smog, and pollution above a
major highway "natural"?

Traffic jams have a scale free fractal pattern and power law statistical
distributions. Pollution above a freeway because there are no winds
crossing freeways? Total pollution from cars has been dropping quickly for
some time now.

http://www.highways.org/Mar06-speaker-slideshows/Schwartz.ppt#15

The real pollution is now particualte matter coming from diesiel trains,
busses, and of course trucks.

[Jym Dyer]

Post by Jack May
Traffic jams have a scale free fractal pattern and power law
statistical distributions.

=v= Cite? You must show your math, if you want to free us from
the insidious propaganda of Karl Friedrich Gauss.

Post by Jack May
Total pollution from cars has been dropping quickly for some
time now.

=v= Only for certain specific pollutants; others have of course
been on the rise as the nation's fleet has become less and less
fuel efficient. Also, per-mile emissions reductions are erased
because cars are being driven further to deal with sprawl.

Post by Jack May
The real pollution is now particualte [sic] matter coming from
diesiel [sic] trains, busses, and of course trucks.

=v= Cite? Particulate matter also includes tire dust from ICE
and hybrid cars, of course -- but not from trains.
<_Jym_>

[Jack May]

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Jack May
Traffic jams have a scale free fractal pattern and power law
statistical distributions.

Traffic jams are large systems and have large system statistical power law
distributions which are the basis of fractals. But since you can not seem
to reason from such obvious facts or figure out how to use Google
effectively:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v51/i4/p2909_1

Post by Jym Dyer
=v= Cite? You must show your math, if you want to free us from
the insidious propaganda of Karl Friedrich Gauss.

Post by Jack May
Total pollution from cars has been dropping quickly for some
time now.

=v= Only for certain specific pollutants; others have of course
been on the rise as the nation's fleet has become less and less
fuel efficient. Also, per-mile emissions reductions are erased
because cars are being driven further to deal with sprawl.

You don't understand the words "Total pollution"? I guess for you, people
have to start educating you from the first grade and up. You are
increasingly just not worth the time you waste with your extreme ignorance.
The graph of total pollution is at:

http://www.highways.org/Mar06-speaker-slideshows/Schwartz.ppt#15

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Jack May
The real pollution is now particualte [sic] matter coming from
diesiel [sic] trains, busses, and of course trucks.

=v= Cite? Particulate matter also includes tire dust from ICE
and hybrid cars, of course -- but not from trains.

Diesel trains have very deadly particulate matter pollution. Trains don't
generate wheel and other dust particulates? You are totally nuts.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Jack May

Post by Jack May
Traffic jams have a scale free fractal pattern and power law
statistical distributions.

Traffic jams are large systems and have large system statistical power law
distributions which are the basis of fractals. But since you can not seem
to reason from such obvious facts or figure out how to use Google

I'll have a gefilte fish on Mandelbrot.

[William]

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Jack May
Traffic jams have a scale free fractal pattern and power law
statistical distributions.

=v= Cite? You must show your math, if you want to free us from
the insidious propaganda of Karl Friedrich Gauss.

Post by Jack May
Total pollution from cars has been dropping quickly for some
time now.

=v= Only for certain specific pollutants; others have of course
been on the rise as the nation's fleet has become less and less
fuel efficient. Also, per-mile emissions reductions are erased
because cars are being driven further to deal with sprawl.

Post by Jack May
The real pollution is now particualte [sic] matter coming from
diesiel [sic] trains, busses, and of course trucks.

=v= Cite? Particulate matter also includes tire dust from ICE
and hybrid cars, of course -- but not from trains.
<_Jym_>

dude,read the first dam post.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by William

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Jack May
Traffic jams have a scale free fractal pattern and power law
statistical distributions.

=v= Cite? You must show your math, if you want to free us from
the insidious propaganda of Karl Friedrich Gauss.

Post by Jack May
Total pollution from cars has been dropping quickly for some
time now.

=v= Only for certain specific pollutants; others have of course
been on the rise as the nation's fleet has become less and less
fuel efficient. Also, per-mile emissions reductions are erased
because cars are being driven further to deal with sprawl.

Post by Jack May
The real pollution is now particualte [sic] matter coming from
diesiel [sic] trains, busses, and of course trucks.

=v= Cite? Particulate matter also includes tire dust from ICE
and hybrid cars, of course -- but not from trains.
<_Jym_>

dude,read the first dam post.

I didn't see any posts about beavers...?

[Bolwerk]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by William

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Jack May
Traffic jams have a scale free fractal pattern and power law
statistical distributions.

=v= Cite? You must show your math, if you want to free us from
the insidious propaganda of Karl Friedrich Gauss.

Post by Jack May
Total pollution from cars has been dropping quickly for some
time now.

=v= Only for certain specific pollutants; others have of course
been on the rise as the nation's fleet has become less and less
fuel efficient. Also, per-mile emissions reductions are erased
because cars are being driven further to deal with sprawl.

Post by Jack May
The real pollution is now particualte [sic] matter coming from
diesiel [sic] trains, busses, and of course trucks.

=v= Cite? Particulate matter also includes tire dust from ICE
and hybrid cars, of course -- but not from trains.
<_Jym_>

dude,read the first dam post.

I didn't see any posts about beavers...?

No, no, no, no. He wrote something on the dam's post. It was about the
man from Nantucket, I think.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by William

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Jack May
Traffic jams have a scale free fractal pattern and power law
statistical distributions.

=v= Cite? You must show your math, if you want to free us from
the insidious propaganda of Karl Friedrich Gauss.

Post by Jack May
Total pollution from cars has been dropping quickly for some
time now.

=v= Only for certain specific pollutants; others have of course
been on the rise as the nation's fleet has become less and less
fuel efficient. Also, per-mile emissions reductions are erased
because cars are being driven further to deal with sprawl.

Post by Jack May
The real pollution is now particualte [sic] matter coming from
diesiel [sic] trains, busses, and of course trucks.

=v= Cite? Particulate matter also includes tire dust from ICE
and hybrid cars, of course -- but not from trains.
<_Jym_>

dude,read the first dam post.

I didn't see any posts about beavers...?

That is inviting a rude riposte.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Martin Edwards

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by William

Post by Jym Dyer

Post by Jack May
Traffic jams have a scale free fractal pattern and power law
statistical distributions.

=v= Cite? You must show your math, if you want to free us from
the insidious propaganda of Karl Friedrich Gauss.

Post by Jack May
Total pollution from cars has been dropping quickly for some
time now.

=v= Only for certain specific pollutants; others have of course
been on the rise as the nation's fleet has become less and less
fuel efficient. Also, per-mile emissions reductions are erased
because cars are being driven further to deal with sprawl.

Post by Jack May
The real pollution is now particualte [sic] matter coming from
diesiel [sic] trains, busses, and of course trucks.

=v= Cite? Particulate matter also includes tire dust from ICE
and hybrid cars, of course -- but not from trains.
<_Jym_>

dude,read the first dam post.

I didn't see any posts about beavers...?

That is inviting a rude riposte.

Hydroelectric power...?

:-D

[Bolwerk]

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.
Rail obviously does not grow this way because it is not capable of
implementing most required characteristics of large, scalable system
structures as roads do.

It appears they're talking about streets more than roads (there is
something of a difference).

I don't see what this has to do with rail. If anything, it's a smack at
cars, since they interrupt the "natural" state of foot traffic.

Post by Jack May
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13759-city-road-networks-grow-like-biological-systems.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news7_head_dn13759
"French and US physicists have shown that the road networks in cities evolve
driven by a simple universal mechanism despite significant cultural and
historical differences. The resulting patterns are much like the veins of a
leaf."
"Marc Barthélemy of the French Atomic Energy Commission in
Bruyères-le-Châtel and Alessandro Flammini of Indiana University, US,
analyzed street pattern data from roughly 300 cities, including Brasilia,
Cairo, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Venice."
"They found that cities' road patterns have a lot in common mathematically,
as well as looking similar to the eye."
"The main influence on the simulated network as it grows is the need to
efficiently connect new areas to the existing road network - a process they
call "local optimization". They say the road patterns in cities evolve
thanks to similar local efforts, as people try to connect houses, businesses
and other infrastructures to existing roads."
"Cities are not just the result of rational planning - in the same way that
living organisms are not simply what is in their genetic code," Barthélemy
told New Scientist.
"Previous models of urban development assumed that efficient transport
across the entire network motivated the system's growth - as if planned from
the top down. Focusing instead on the structure of local connections seems
truer to real life, says Flammini."
"Using the local efficiency of connections to drive road network growth
looks to be a truer fit with reality than using the total cost of traveling
across the network, says Onnela. "Especially given that the time scale of
city growth (possibly thousands of years) and the time scale of urban
planning (perhaps tens of years) are so clearly different."

[Jack May]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.
Rail obviously does not grow this way because it is not capable of
implementing most required characteristics of large, scalable system
structures as roads do.

It appears they're talking about streets more than roads (there is
something of a difference).

It is about the total road structure from the freeway to your driveway.

Post by Bolwerk
I don't see what this has to do with rail. If anything, it's a smack at
cars, since they interrupt the "natural" state of foot traffic.

Its a big deal for rail because rail is 1D not 2D and is not scale free and
scalable. That means that rail can not inherently scale up to provide
transportation for a large urban area at all levels connectivity to
buildings and people at an affordable price. Roads on the other hand
inherently are scalable to large urban areas to provide connectivity to
everyone.

The Internet is of course also scalable. Scalability is a primary property
that is considered mandatory in present large system designs before the
design can go ahead for implementation.

These days any large system that is not scalable is usually stopped early in
the game because it will become a major problem as the system expands over
time.

[Bolwerk]

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.
Rail obviously does not grow this way because it is not capable of
implementing most required characteristics of large, scalable system
structures as roads do.

It appears they're talking about streets more than roads (there is
something of a difference).

It is about the total road structure from the freeway to your driveway.

Post by Bolwerk
I don't see what this has to do with rail. If anything, it's a smack at
cars, since they interrupt the "natural" state of foot traffic.

Its a big deal for rail because rail is 1D not 2D and is not scale free and
scalable. That means that rail can not inherently scale up to provide
transportation for a large urban area at all levels connectivity to
buildings and people at an affordable price. Roads on the other hand
inherently are scalable to large urban areas to provide connectivity to
everyone.
The Internet is of course also scalable. Scalability is a primary property
that is considered mandatory in present large system designs before the
design can go ahead for implementation.
These days any large system that is not scalable is usually stopped early in
the game because it will become a major problem as the system expands over
time.

So you're saying that additional rail lines can't be built to move more
people? Mmm, must be the Kool-Aid.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.
Rail obviously does not grow this way because it is not capable of
implementing most required characteristics of large, scalable system
structures as roads do.

It appears they're talking about streets more than roads (there is
something of a difference).

It is about the total road structure from the freeway to your driveway.

Post by Bolwerk
I don't see what this has to do with rail. If anything, it's a smack
at cars, since they interrupt the "natural" state of foot traffic.

Its a big deal for rail because rail is 1D not 2D and is not scale
free and scalable. That means that rail can not inherently scale up
to provide transportation for a large urban area at all levels
connectivity to buildings and people at an affordable price. Roads
on the other hand inherently are scalable to large urban areas to
provide connectivity to everyone.
The Internet is of course also scalable. Scalability is a primary
property that is considered mandatory in present large system designs
before the design can go ahead for implementation.
These days any large system that is not scalable is usually stopped
early in the game because it will become a major problem as the
system expands over time.

So you're saying that additional rail lines can't be built to move more
people? Mmm, must be the Kool-Aid.

Nah, he'd never get on the bus.

[Jack May]

Post by Bolwerk
So you're saying that additional rail lines can't be built to move more
people? Mmm, must be the Kool-Aid.

Scalable means having characteristics which make the network efficient.
There is a lot written about scalability requirements because it is so
important in modern systems. Those characteristics were not well known or
unknown in the 19th Century when rail was the dominant transportation
technology.

Rail for example can not really be built for door to door travel like
Internet packets or roads.

Before doing insults, please realize you probably have very little
understanding of present network concepts.

[Jym Dyer]

=v= "Biological systems" come in many forms, and it's a constant
problem that people try to pattern-match one multivariate system
with another, generally on superficial grounds.

=v= I don't doubt that road patterns match a chaotic pattern
that can be found in nature -- e.g. "arteries." However, nature
is usually quite efficient, and a fuller appreciation of the
entire cars-on-roads system with its inputs and waste products
matches fewer and fewer things.

=v= Personally I'd say it's like a fermentation process hopped
up on heavily-refined sugar (not all that natural, of course):
the yeast consume and consume until they wipe themselves out
by drowning in their own waste product.
<_Jym_>

P.S.: Note that Jack May can't seem to wrap his head around
multivariate situations, despite his claim to specialization
in theory and statistics of large systems. Nope, to him,
car = good and anything else = bad, with a totally perfect
1:1 correlation that he asserts over and over again.

Oh be nice and don't spoil Jack's fun. He's obviously
very proud of having learned the adjective "Gaussian."
-- Richard Mlynarik, 2004

---------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==--------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

[Bolwerk]

Post by Jym Dyer
Oh be nice and don't spoil Jack's fun. He's obviously
very proud of having learned the adjective "Gaussian."
-- Richard Mlynarik, 2004

I agree. We need to lay off poor Jack. It must be hard being the
hottest shit ever to walk the Earth - the only person who understands
that transit is inherently bad, that Europe is technologically
backwards, that Linux is for technological laggards, and that OJ really
was innocent.

[Martin Edwards]

Post by Bolwerk

Post by Jym Dyer
Oh be nice and don't spoil Jack's fun. He's obviously
very proud of having learned the adjective "Gaussian."
-- Richard Mlynarik, 2004

I agree. We need to lay off poor Jack. It must be hard being the
hottest shit ever to walk the Earth - the only person who understands
that transit is inherently bad, that Europe is technologically
backwards, that Linux is for technological laggards, and that OJ really
was innocent.

I understand that Elvis came up to him last week and asked the way to
San José

[Paul D. DeRocco]

Post by Jack May
Roads are interpedently "natural" by following the rules of nature,
especially local optimization and using hierarchical structures.
Rail obviously does not grow this way because it is not capable of
implementing most required characteristics of large, scalable system
structures as roads do.
http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn13759-city-road-networks-grow-like-biological-systems.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news7_head_dn13759
"French and US physicists have shown that the road networks in cities
evolve > driven by a simple universal mechanism despite significant
cultural and historical differences. The resulting patterns are much like
the veins of a leaf."
"Marc Barthélemy of the French Atomic Energy Commission in
Bruyères-le-Châtel and Alessandro Flammini of Indiana University, US,
analyzed street pattern data from roughly 300 cities, including Brasilia,
Cairo, Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Venice."
"They found that cities' road patterns have a lot in common
mathematically, as well as looking similar to the eye."
"The main influence on the simulated network as it grows is the need to
efficiently connect new areas to the existing road network - a process
they call "local optimization". They say the road patterns in cities
evolve thanks to similar local efforts, as people try to connect houses,
businesses > and other infrastructures to existing roads."

Another natural mechanism that's easy to observe in the construction of
roads is the way they mimic the action of drying mud. As population
increases, demand builds for road that function as short cuts across areas
that have no roads. This mimics the stress reduction that occurs when a
crack appears across the surface of a chunk of dried mud that doesn't have
any cracks. The result is that the pattern of roads (in unplanned, i.e.,
rural) areas looks like the pattern of cracks in mud. Look at any map of the
northeast. Even the major roads in cities like Boston look that way,
although they eventually get filled in with local planned grids.