Quote:
Originally Posted by Arts
Splitting the line means if I'm downtown and want to get to Betts, I have to watch the greenline bus go by and wait for the red, and likewise if I want to get to confed it means I have to wait for the green or else take the red and walk from diefenbaker. If they need to split it like this because there is not enough ridership all the way to blairmore then they should terminate at Confed and service blairmore with feeder routes.
There are also WAY too many stops still (many only two blocks apart), IMO this is not how rapid transit should be. Because there are so many stops the 'stations' merely become shelters not really different than what we currently have except lighted and heated (until the glass gets smashed out by vandals) - had there been less stations they would each be busier serving feeder routes, with the option of more park and rides and with more ammenities such as security personnel, restrooms and most importantly off-board fare payment.
I agree with you about the at-grade rail crossings, soon as a train comes rolling through it's no longer rapid transit. I expect when this is whole new configuration is rolled out it's going to be merely that, a new transit configuration which doesn't seem particularly rapid and does not attract any new ridership.
|
I've heard that the generally adhered to span of 800m between stations is basically standard for rapid transit systems. There is closer spacing in some higher traffic areas (ie. Downtown, College Drive), which I don't see as a problem.
As for your point regarding lower potential traffic to Blairmore, you might be right, but then again if only half the buses on 22nd travel past Confederation, wouldn't this help to resolve the issue? Again, I struggle to see the problem.
It would be nice to have truer 'Stations' rather than what is proposed, but again, its an improvement over what is currently present. I hope there's a prepayment system but I have my doubts.
Park and ride is a forthcoming component of this proposal, per documentation.
Ultimately I make no illusions -- this proposal really cannot honestly be called 'rapid transit'. But anyone who thinks that a fully realized rapid transit system could possibly be implemented directly from the system we currently have is living in a dream world. I see this project as more of creating a skeleton over which a real rapid transit system can be built in the future. It's not perfect, but it's a necessary first step.
Please do not take what I'm about to say here personally as it is not aimed at you, but I see an attitude which is far too common. Looking at a pragmatic proposal that doesn't cover every dream aspect but does a good job of improving core functionality, then essentially calling for it to be entirely cast aside because of the perceived shortcomings. I'm not saying 'take what you can get', but rather, be realistic/pragmatic about what is possible given available resources, and do what you can to improve the situation while setting the stage for further improvements over time.