This paper presents a case study in which two alternatives for station spacing for non-central business district (non-BCD) sections of rapid transit lines are evaluated in terms of capital and operating costs, demand, and user benefits. This study involves the use of either a long or a short station spacing for a proposed rapid transit line in Chicago. The two alternatives for station spacings were chosen because they represent realistic strategies for station location on the line. The basic trade-offs between the two alternatives are shown in cost and demand and user savings. Compared with the long alternative, the short alternative cost move to construct and operate, increases the user's in-vehicle time, but decreases the user's access times to stations. A detailed evaluation was undertaken to provide a quantitative examination of the trade-offs between the two alternatives. This evaluation concluded an analysis of the costs, the ridership, and the user savings associated with the long and short alternatives. A quantitative comparison of the alternatives is given as well as a sensitivity analysis of the analytical results. The study concludes that in terms of cost and demand and user savings, the long alternative is superior to the short alternative for the non-CBD section of a rapid transit line in Chicago. The evaluation approach used in this paper can be applied to comparing alternative strategies for station locations as well as to individual station locations in various circumstances.

Media Info

  • Media Type: Print
  • Features: References; Tables;
  • Pagination: pp 13-17
  • Monograph Title: Rail transit
  • Serial:

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00167602
  • Record Type: Publication
  • ISBN: 0309026520
  • Files: TRIS, TRB
  • Created Date: Jan 30 1981 12:00AM