Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron
To add, average station spacing is relatively far apart to match the type of trains running on the line in suburban areas already, there's no need to bypass any. Station spacing is relatively short only in the urban central core, where being in walking distance is more important than average train speed. They're not going to be bypassing these central core stations anyways.
Now, if station spacing were blocks apart, less than 1,500 feet or 400 meters, like they are in New York's subways, the value of having express trains become more important. But their value dissipates when stations are placed miles apart. With new commuter rail lines, every station exists for a reason, or it wouldn't have been built. Maybe 25, 50, 75 years from now conditions will change, other stations will be built and some existing stations will be shut down. I don't see the need to accommodate express trains when the ride to central core stations are just a half hour long. But, let's suppose and suggest over the decades they build many more stations along the existing line halving the station spacing, and as a result they change the type of trains running on the corridor to EMUs, they could add passing tracks in at a few of the new stations to accommodate express train services. So, the fact they aren't now using express trains doesn't mean they can't forever.
|
Part of what US public transit rail systems routinely do wrong is that room to expand for increased infrastructural efficiency too often is not part of the initial package. This greatly increases the costs, if and when, line capacity is expanded. Simple things, like providing room for a 3rd or a 3rd and 4th line at stations are just not done, even in the best designs such as BART.
If provisions for capacity expansion and increased speed were part of initial designs, I would agree with your premise.
IMO, much of the "whys" has to do with the relative lack of exposure that those who make the decisions have to what the rest of the world is doing, or has recently done. I am not talking just about crash standards, but, also about routing, scheduling, station design, switching, curve radii, etc. Even with the behemoths that the US and Canada use for lines with mixed freight and passenger service, significant improvements in capacity, and, speed can be made fairly cheaply if expansion right of way is already owned.
The US continues to build commuter rail systems that are very similar to those that were built early in the 20th century for cities like Chicago and NYC.
In my home town, Denver, we, arguably are building the 2nd best new public transportation system, after Washington, in the US, yet, our designs neither reflect the average speeds, and, nor the passenger friendliness present in NYC in the 1920s.
Prev
Linear Mode
