Quote:
Originally Posted by sim
Also, how do you figure that is a considerable travel time increase? Because there is an "extra" station there, or because there is a longer (by at most seconds) staton dwell time?
|
Stations with large amounts of boardings and alightings will have longer dwell times than those without. Trying to do boardings onto what will remain the busiest part of the system is a bad idea because the increase in dwell time due to increase of demand like most things in transportation in a U shaped curve, above a certain capacity factor, increase in use will decrease passenger throughput per LRV instead of increasing it due to congestion.
To avoid this problem one would have to increase capacity by a fair bit on the south line, an investment that otherwise wouldn't be needed. Since our system is not meeting even current demands for capacity, I doubt we would ever add enough to make this extra transfer impose minimal costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim
Oh, and you want to alleviate the problem you are supposing? Well, simply schedule the proposed SELRT to arrive at the proposed transfer station immediately after the SLRT leaves that station. There you instantly have an extra, whatever the minimum headway would be, waiting time.
|
I am not saying that under conditions where there is enough capacity the transfer would be bad, I am just saying it is highly unlikely that a transfer of this sort would ever be backed up by enough extra capacity to not cause large indirect costs.
In either case, you are causing large ongoing costs to a large number of individuals and the system (in the case of not enough capacity), or large costs to the system (in the case of enough added capacity between downtown and the transfer).
I just don't think the potential benefits to SE --> South transfer and SE to east downtown transfers would add up to anywhere near the costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sim
Transfer stations are not something to be discouraged based on a narrow definition of what might be a narrowly defined economic benefit on one line alone. Such a posit largely flies in the face of what transit virtually aims to acheive, or should ultimately aim to acheive. Again, if the goal is to keep the network as diametrical lines only, meant to serve commuter trips only, then great, do it. Economically, on a per line basis, great. Transit planning as a whole.... well...
The capital costs of building such a transfer station is where the real contentiousness lies here.
|
Not really - Calgary's LRT has for a long time focused on keeping operating costs low, as technology costs have gone down we are only recently embracing the innovations of air conditioning, fare machines that take plastic and give change, and real time arrival times.
If there were appreciable benefits to an east end transfer, I'm sure it will be recommended in the hopefully soon to be seen tunnel study.
To say that economic analysis should be thrown to the wind is ludicrous - would you have spent more to serve less people by routing the West LRT to Mount Royal College? Would you maintain express buses to downtown from outlying communities because some will stop taking transit due to the transfer?
The city has a limited budget for capital improvement, but that is almost entirely funded by outside grants, because operational costs are funded by local taxpayers and fares, there is a reason most investments are judged at least partially by their impact on operating costs.
Or else we end up like Ottawa, which has a subsidy almost twice as large to serve less riders.
Prev
Linear Mode
