Last week I posted on the odd phenomenon of one-way splits, where the two directions of transit service are moved some distance apart. My point was that it's a great example of symbolic transit, in that the lines appear to cover more area, in a way that looks nice to developers, but they actually cover less, if you define "cover" as "being within walking distance of both directions of service." If we assume an acceptable walk to be, say, 400m, then as you can see in the diagram below, the area within walking distance of both directions of service (blue in these diagrams) shrinks as the separation gets larger.
Most commenters agreed, but there was an interesting dissent.
The post is misleading. It makes more sense to calculate the round-trip walking distance, in which case the areas covered in blue would be the same.
As I understand it, this commenter thought I should draw the situation this way:
I have to admit I had never heard this definition of coverage before. It implies that if we have to walk 800m to the bus in the morning but 0m to return in the afternoon, we're within a acceptable 400m walk.
What do you think?