Quote:
Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker
In my non-learned opinion, it is likely much cheaper to increase passenger throughput at an existing station, than count on additional passengers going to another station (assuming a station is not designed with the baseline to pass through at least a 125 m train every 2 minutes). Since a station has to be able to evacuate a full train in it plus platform standees in a certain amount of time (no idea on this number), I doubt any station even baseline design will be the bottleneck for capacity.
If there are passenger clearing difficulties, it will be due to trains being full, and an extra station makes that problem worse by increasing travel time, and increasing the cost by requiring more trains to provide the same level of service.
As for thinking people will switch stations to go to less crowded ones in appreciable numbers, if crowds acted rationally that might be true, but I wouldn't count on it. Even if it was true, if the stations aren't designed to be choke points in the first place, this won't be a problem.
|
I'm not relying on people to switch to less crowded stations; I'm just relying on them to use the closest station. If you replace Downtown East with stations at Bank and Elgin, you will effectively split the volumes at Downtown East in two.
Travel time is unlikely to get longer once we factor in the off-train pedestrian commute
[...]
Quote:
|
Back to Ottawa, thinking you need an extra station due to capacity reasons I think represents the anxiety that the system is being poorly designed. Hopefully in this respect one can ignore the potential problem due to safety codes causing minimum design standards.
|
Yes, imagine that: anxiety that the system is being poorly designed. I do wonder why we might have that anxiety? It's not like any transit infrastructure Ottawa has designed before has been poorly designed, after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McC
|
Not really: he's relying on the claim that it was covered in the initial environmental assessment, but he has already intervened in at least three ways to fix problems that got through that assessment: the routing and depth of the tunnel west of the canal, the location of Rideau Station, and the location of the east tunnel portal, which in turn changed Campus from being an underground to an above ground station.
Once you've invalidated part of an environmental assessment, you've invalidated the entire thing, unless you come up with some pretty compelling reasons why it's wrong in only those specific areas and no other (which we haven't had). If it was wrong on the above three points - and one of them is very significant - then how do we know it's not wrong on other issues, like the number of stations?
Threaded Mode