"Lanyon, Ryan" wrote:
> I think you mean at grade stations are cheaper to build. I disagree with
> your argument that bus-only stations would be at-grade. If the system was
> entirely built at grade, then it would not provide rapid transit.
I prefer below-grade r-o-w, but at-grade stations. This involves the transit
vehicles climbing into the station, naturally losing momentum via gravity, and then
descending into the trench after the stop, accelerating via gravity again. This
"graviotram" technology saves lost of energy, but is more problematic with rail, as
the cars are longer (hard to handly the changes in grade) and they have more
trouble with hills.
> Again, the choice of mode for rapid transit does not affect this. If a rail
> system exists, it still has feeder bus routes.
Of course, there are still feeder route from the largest stations, but the simple
fact that riders have to transfer means that 1) they will consider shopping for
things they need at this transfer points, and 2) if it is not so far to get the
rest of the way home, walk instead of waiting for the connector bus, providing both
"eyes on the street" and giving them more exercise. When a bus-only system is used
_and_ the routes run from the burbs all the way to the centre of town (vs. having
only transitway-only routes run downtown, in which transfering is very common), the
rider has no need to even look up from his book or newspaper to notice the
neighbourhood-core shops. If he doesn't patronize them, he and the neighbourhood
will lose them.
> > The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect those of my
> To Post a message, send it to: carfree_cities@...
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
> Group address: http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/