Quote:
Originally Posted by kyle_olsen
With 160m long stations, and each underground station costing approximately $100 million, I would say they have a good balance. Realistically, they could remove one and reposition the others without reducing projected ridership that much (especially since most riders are captive anyways).
|
Oh yes it would... because loading times would shoot through the roof. It's going to be bad enough with only 3 stations serving the core (down from 5 right now) but if that were to be reduced further it would insane.
You also have to bear in mind that fewer stations = fewer trains in the core loading at any one time. According to this plan, there is an absolute cap of 3 trains in the downtown. If that were to be reduced it would not only reduce the number of available trains at any one time to 2 but also reduce the effective hourly throughput as well.
You can't just keep reducing station numbers and hope that there are no further consequences. If we're going to build a tunnel, then it has to be done right first time. I tend to favour incrementalism in other things, but tunnels don't lend themselves to it. The tunnel has to have enough stations, they have to be long enough for anything we'll ever run and the tunnels have to be large enough in diameter for double-deck trains.