Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698
Exactly. And the technology and vehicles really don't matter - the key issue is grade separation. Trams, full-sized trains, and even buses all get the same benefits from grade separation - fast, cheap to operate, reliable service that can be automated, which in turn allows the kind of high frequencies that SkyTrain riders have become spoiled by.
|
90% of the argument is the grade separation and 10% is automation (eg as an extension of Skytrain.)
Like had it been sold to us as a grade-separated LRT that wasn't a Skytrain extension, the argument would be "why are we building this super-expensive LRT that doesn't integrate with the existing skytrain" but people would not be opposing it, just advocating for using the same tech so they don't have to transfer.
But instead we get the worst of both bad ideas. So this puts passengers, pedestrians and car drivers at risk in order to save initial capital costs, but ends up paying out more in insurance claims over time when LRV drivers go on perpetual medical leave, and paying out for repairs to LRV's, and damage to the city property during collisions, plus "wrongful death" lawsuits due to lack of safety equipment. The victims that are most frequently bike riders (due to the rails caching the bike tire), wheelchair users (same reason), blind people, and those who are distracted by their phones.
You often hear the argument from LRT operators about "well the pedestrian or vehicle was trespassing, it wasn't preventable", yes it's totally preventable by not designing the LRT in a way trespassing is possible.
Remember that dog that died earlier by running down the Skytrain tracks this year? I wonder how many dogs and cats are hit by LRT's. That dog's death was preventable as well, as it was an operator that decided to resume service with the dog loose. Human decisions into costs are what results in unnecessary loss of life.
Prev
Linear Mode
