I agree in principle but I still think it's a bit of a gamble moving PT further away from people under any circumstances - unless there is another station *very* close by that will be retained. Of course, stations with very low patronage should be evaluated for feasibility and closed if of no real benefit but don't forget how reluctant people are to actually use their legs and walk anywhere (especially in 40 degrees in summer) - even if they will be able to access a faster service as a result. Plus, although small in overall numbers, the service could become a lot less accessible to people with disabilities if stops were spaced further apart.PeFe wrote:No there are too many stations spaced closely together.......who gets the express services and who doesn't?Llessur2002 wrote:But removing stations will drive people from the areas in which stations are closed back into their cars. Wouldn't it be better to keep all stations but configure the network and timetable to run more express services?
Yes 90% of stations need an upgrade....but there needs to be some sort of master plan regarding the train lines.
For example half the stations north of Glanville could be removed on the Outer Harbor line, the remainder upgraded with the possibility of transit orientated development around them.
Commuters are always willing to walk a little further or catch a bus if there is a pay off in the end, like a very quick train service into the city. Nothing can beat heavy rail over long distances to move large numbers of people quickly and smoothly.
Instead of true 'express services', why can't some services just miss stops with low patronage? E.g. only every other service would stop at Woodville Park? One train every 30 minutes instead of the current 15?