Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife
Oh, I understand that. Your wording just had me confused.
So, would you say that 1-mile stop spacing is just right for LA's oddly configured medium-density, suburban-like land use? Or do you think it's more of an inconvenience?
|
I think it works nicely because it can be interchangable with the transit mode. That stop spacing can work with both Light Rail and Heavy Rail.
Quote:
|
One more question: How does Chicago implement express service when it only has two tracks (or am I not seeing additional ones?)?
|
There's four tracks on the Chicago Northside line to enable express service.
Quote:
|
I was hinting more at creating express service so that we could have more infill stations, giving us that conventional 1/2-mile stop spacing. I realize, though, that this is not feasible. I don't think, however, that that should necessarily stop us from adding an infill station here and there.
|
The biggest exception to that rule is in Downtown LA.
Quote:
|
I don't agree with strictly following the 1-mile stop spacing. I believe we need to make special exceptions for, say, stations at Wilshire/Robertson and La Cienega/Melrose to serve two popular high-end shopping destinations.
|
The introduction of another mode or style of service that can fill the gap until the demand really calls for it would work as well. Such as a streetcar or Bus Only lanes with Rapid bus service that feed the subway stations at strategic points and have frequent connecting service.
It's all about building a cohesive interconnected network.
Another thing to keep in mind is how we are building the tunnels. Our's are bored tubes so it makes it difficult to add infill stations because we'd have to shut the track down to build the stations. Cut-Cover gives you more future flexibilty because the station platforms can be built around the tracks but businesses would have to suffer through the initial and additional construction process.