Longer-than-driving travel times is generally a given with public transit, I don't think it's a factor, and if it is then I think catering to it is catering to the fringes of people that probably stand a low chance of using it anyway.
The amount of riders you gain with more stations seems like it would far outweigh the amount you'd lose from a 2 minute increase per-station in travel times.
Parking, not wanting to drive due to convenience/bad weather, wanting to drink, etc. all outweigh the increase in time that the LRT takes me to get somewhere. Usually by enough that I don't even really consider the time it takes as an issue, just a consideration.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Don't get me wrong, I understand that more stations increases the convenience for the people in the area. I used my extreme example to show there is a trade off between trying to balance the number of stops with the needs of people traveling further. So you could do something like Knalus said, and have the entrance to the 16th ave station around 10th ave, and use an inclined moving sidewalk to get people down and across.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knalus
If you put the "16th ave" stop south of 16th ave, and have the stairs slope upwards towards 16th, then putting the stop south of the actual 16th makes sense, and kills the need for a 9th ave station. In other cities I've been to, most subway stations take up between 2 and 4 blocks anyways between entrances.
The length of travel would be similar to the series of escalators required, so very little difference to having a physical station there.
The Following User Says Thank You to ken0042 For This Useful Post:
I wonder if the posters' house locations would provide interesting insight to the varied positions they hold on routing/stops/line length?
For instance, I can surmise Ken does not live near 9th ave or 64th ave, and probably lives farther north and would be impacted by a larger travel time. Calgarygeologist probably lives in the deep south, hence wanting the train to run to Seton, but only make it as far north as Beddington. Am I close? Not meaning to offend here, just curious.
In my posts I have stated that the station I use everyday should have never been built. Though I am suburbia so less stops over convenience definitely favours me.
Yes the project is expensive but that's because we're doing it the right way with tunneling and underground stations downtown. If you truly want to model it the old way then fight against subway'ing it.
I live far away from the future green line so I haven't been paying as much attention to LRT updates, this part above makes me so happy. They need underground stations downtown so bad.
I'm one of those people that comes into downtown on the train from the far west end, and has to ride it all the way to the far east end. Because the train has to stop for traffic lights downtown, it makes it such a slow process. They're not synched either, if we hit that first light coming out of West Kirby, it's pretty much a guarantee we'll hit every single one the rest of the way. It's so frustratingly slow when you're already kinda tight for time.
Even with extra stops downtown, if you're underground and not worrying about traffic lights, I bet it'd still be quicker than it is now. Really shouldn't take close to 15min to get through 5 very close together stops downtown. I feel like I'm in an early 20th century San Francisco trolley car when that happens.
The downtown lights are synced perfectly for their intent. That is to allow the train long enough at the platform to load, then get a green light and go. This allows, in peak times, to have a train at every platform, and they shuffle ahead to the next one.
In my posts I have stated that the station I use everyday should have never been built. Though I am suburbia so less stops over convenience definitely favours me.
Well no disrespect but poop on you.
Getting rid of two stations to trim minutes off a commute past stoney trail just doesn't wash with me to be honest. If these guys were so worried about saving minutes they shouldn't have moved so far away from work.
Now 9th avenue is a separate issue.. maybe it won't happen because the cost is just TOO crazy for how deep it would have to go but to save a minute for people in Panorama? Nah, sorry no. Anything north of 16th looks be small sidewalk like stations, the cost is minimal compared to the people the route catches.
Reading up on the line now it seems MacKnight station will just be north of there to line up with the Aquatic & Rec center, The Library and the Arena that are all lined up together. Very cool.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm
but to save a minute for people in Panorama? Nah, sorry no.
The thing is that assuming the train is full, that is 600 man-minutes wasted for the sake of 2 or 3 people who didn't want to walk an extra 3 minutes themselves. So 600 man minutes vs 6 or 9.
That is assuming the train only stops for a minute. Counting deceleration and acceleration time lost, a stop probably costs closer to 2 minutes.
Then as you mentioned, the cost. Not only to build but to maintain.
The thing is that assuming the train is full, that is 600 man-minutes wasted for the sake of 2 or 3 people who didn't want to walk an extra 3 minutes themselves. So 600 man minutes vs 6 or 9..
I'm not tracking this at all.
Quote:
That is assuming the train only stops for a minute. Counting deceleration and acceleration time lost, a stop probably costs closer to 2 minutes.
Okay. Six minutes. Mindset doesn't change. Eight minutes. Still the same. The commutes are long because of their location.
Quote:
Then as you mentioned, the cost. Not only to build but to maintain
None of us know the costs of the smaller stations, well I don't, can someone find and post the numbers? Going to assume they're much less then the big stations on the other lines. That's a small quibble to be honest. Are the sidewalk stations downtown all that much to maintain? Was the old 10th St station hard to maintain? Besides cleaning and the occasionally bucket of lime green paint for the rails.
Location: Close enough to make a beer run during a TV timeout
Exp:
I don't need numbers in front of me to tell me that 10 stories of escalator will cost more to maintain than an outdoor station. I'm talking about the 9th ave station; as you were.
And your argument to make the commute longer for some sort of punishment doesn't make any sense in a project like this. If that was the goal, it would be an inner city only project. But it isn't.
I am kind of curious about the 9th Ave station as well, but more along the lines of are they going to make this more than just a Ctrain station? I am almost thinking of Seattle's underground bus terminal. with the mall entrances all around. I don't know what they can do here, but it seems like an opportunity to do something beyond the utilitarian. Maybe an indoor climbing wall or bungee jumping.
Ah, got side tracked. Yeah, I'm with you (somewhat) on 9th.
As for commute times, it's not punishment, it's just facts. I don't want to cut out an entire station for an additional four-six-eight minutes at the end of the line. More stations mean more access elsewhere for everyone, it shouldn't be commuter focused.
Live downtown, want to go see a movie, Lego Batman at Landmark in Country Hills. 36 minutes from the last stop downtown on the 301. Safe to say the greenline will beat that? Even with all the current planned stops? The train alone will save people time.
Shaving off entire stations (the small ones like GGG mentioned) to shave off a handful of minutes from the further out users make zero sense IMO.
If the concern for building more stations is the cost, it seems to me that it would be cheaper to build more small stations to serve the same number of people closer to where they live than one large station, which requires more supporting infrastructure.
I've been to a number of cities around the world with LRT systems similar to what I assume they're aiming for with the Green Line. Amsterdam, Munich, and Boston all come to mind.
The Green Line in Boston is probably a good example of what the C-Train Green Line should be. Through the City Centre, the stations are underground and are typical big-city subway stations. As the trains move into the inner-suburbs, they move above ground and run alongside the roads. They have frequent stops at small platforms, serving a local population within a walkable distance and no parking. As they move further out of the city, the stations become less frequent and have more infrastructure, like parking lots.
Here's what it looks like as it move through Brookline, which is just outside the City Centre: https://goo.gl/maps/fpY7mdv9vWE2 That's the "station". It's basically just a long bus stop.
Because each stop serves a smaller number of people, they don't need large platforms. Because each stop is close enough for people to walk to, they don't need large parking lots or other infrastructure.
__________________
Turn up the good, turn down the suck!
I don't need numbers in front of me to tell me that 10 stories of escalator will cost more to maintain than an outdoor station. I'm talking about the 9th ave station; as you were.
And your argument to make the commute longer for some sort of punishment doesn't make any sense in a project like this. If that was the goal, it would be an inner city only project. But it isn't.
Buried at that depth, in that location, how do they possibly intend to keep that dry in another major flood event? I don't care what pumps you have, the Elbow River will win there.
Buried at that depth, in that location, how do they possibly intent to keep that dry in another major flood event? I don't care what pumps you have, the Elbow River will win there.
9th ave NW, it's up the hill so flooding won't be an issue there.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Ah, got side tracked. Yeah, I'm with you (somewhat) on 9th.
As for commute times, it's not punishment, it's just facts. I don't want to cut out an entire station for an additional four-six-eight minutes at the end of the line. More stations mean more access elsewhere for everyone, it shouldn't be commuter focused.
Live downtown, want to go see a movie, Lego Batman at Landmark in Country Hills. 36 minutes from the last stop downtown on the 301. Safe to say the greenline will beat that? Even with all the current planned stops? The train alone will save people time.
Shaving off entire stations (the small ones like GGG mentioned) to shave off a handful of minutes from the further out users make zero sense IMO.
It's not only about minutes. It's about cost. 5 minutes means 4 extra train cars and an extra driver plus the capital cost of the stations.
The goal of the train system is to reduce the kms driven on roads and to provide alternatives for those who are car less. In this world it does imake sense to go down 12 stories to a train or hop on a bus if you are going downtown or to the university from the 9th ave area. Street level buses make more sense for short trips. Also if reducing driven kms you need many more inner city commuters to offset 1 trip from the burbs.
Does anyone have stats on the projected ridership of that particular station?
Is CT planning for any synergy between the Transit App and the CT Twitter account? I know the Transit App is 3rd party, but it would be neat if something could be coordinated so that updates that seem to get posted almost instantaneously on the twitter feed were passed through to the Transit App. It's hard to filter through all of the Twitter messages to figure out if my particular bus or train have been affected by an accident or something.
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
Silly question, but are they building the whole line at once, or will they try to get a section like from North Pointe to wherever the more difficult construction and tunneling begin? It would be great if some portion can be up and running, before the downtown section is realized.
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
