Hey @Alon, a hypothetical interlining (and crayoning) question— if 2 lines converge to the same route at the end of the lines, but a city only has the budget for 2 tracks, would you generally prefer to see them lines interlining briefly, so that both lines get access to the end point (let's say it's a larger destination) or have one line end earlier, forcing a transfer but not interlining?
For instance, if NYC only had the budget for one set of tracks in the Archer Ave extension to Jamaica?
@jsans It depends so much on specifics. In the case of 1980s New York, if there were only enough money for a two-track Archer Avenue Line, then they should not have taken down the Jamaica Avenue El's outer section.
It was purely out of curiosity, I was just looking over at San Francisco's historical plans, and while they don't seem to be expanding any time in the near future with budget shortfalls and lower ridership, I was wondering if they ever act on the proposed Geary-19th Ave line (as Muni, not Bart), along with the proposed burying of the Muni M line at Stonestown and extension to Parkmerced, if they would be better off sharing tracks or not around Stonestown
@jsans Oh, that's easy: don't share tracks, since Parkmerced is not Jamaica and the M isn't at all the busiest Muni Metro line (on pre-corina numbers that was the N and I think the second was the L). The main purpose of a Geary subway is to serve the Geary corridor - an outer circumferential section under 19th is a nice-to-have - so anything that compromises its operations in the southwest corner of the city has net negative value.
Add comment