With stop spacing, I find it depends on the goal a line is meant to achieve, ie, the problem it's meant to solve. A line meant as an upgrade to local service due to crowding on local surface routes would need a high density of local stops (ie,oronto Bloor line). A line meant as an upgrade for a longer corridor is best with stops spaced more widely since it's important to cover the route in a reasonable time frame (ie. Expo line). Often times it's the latter with a rail line acting as an express where people are willing to travel a little farther to get to it since it offers such speed once they're on it. It's a common mistake to take a one-size-fits-all approach as in "a rapid transit line should do X". It should do what you need it to do which can be different things in different contexts.
A lot depends on the density of the area being served with less dense areas benefiting from wider stop spacing. In this case, the density drops off after Broadway so i agree there probably should be another station on the peninsula, but the rest of the route seems adequate.
__________________
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
Don't ask people not to debate a topic. Just stop making debatable assertions. Problem solved.
|
Threaded Mode