Accident at Olympic Station - 7th Ave CTrain Service Suspended

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Where's the huge fight? Its called a discussion.

Anyways, I do somewhat agree with Zamler. Although the popular thing is to call these people idiots for getting hit, there are a host of reasons that these incidents do or can occur. People with mental disability, recent immigrants who don't understand the signage, careless youth, people with headphones on, distracted parents, a wasted university student. Its the same reason car accidents still happen every day. People are human...yet car manufacturers still strive to make safety improvements to their cars every new model.

But not a single improvement is made if people can't or aren't willing to pay the cost of it, or if the solution creates problems of its own in terms of design or functionality of the vehicle.

Originally Posted by Igottago

Some are idiots, some just have an unfortunate split second mistake and thats the end. Of course cost is a factor, but when you have a train system where the train, vehicle traffic, and pedestrians can all intersect you have an increased risk of collision or accident. Its not the optimal design. Too late to go back and change much of it now, but I see no reason not to look at making improvements to ensure both efficiency and safety.

Neither do I, and improvements have been looked at, and the reality is that what most people are calling for is either cost prohibitive, nearly impossible from a technical standpoint, creates other issues or requires funding that is not currently available.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by GGG

I would be all for stricter enforcement of Jay walking laws at ctrain crossings. Put plain clothes ticket writers in that will pay for themselves. Too many people jay walk that eventually some one makes a mistake.

People don't respect the train enough. People running with there arms outstretched to make the train. I think it would be better if the doors were more similar to new york doors where they don't open when you get in the way they just let you pull your arm out.

NY subway doors open most of the time but they do so with a sort of 'screw you' style that I find refreshing.

[Redliner]

Originally Posted by chemgear

If there is anything I have learned in my adult life, it is that the general population is predominantly filled with stupid people.

[Bunk]

I would bet that probably 50 times as many pedestrians are killed by automobiles than light rail vehicles or subways in North America. No one talks about creating safety barriers between sidewalks and roads, or prohibiting people from crossing roads.

Things move around in urban environments, it's an accepted risk. Unfortunate accidents will occur, but odds are you're going to be ok over the course of your life if you exercise caution. We simply cannot protect people from every possible scenario - Calgary's LRT system has reasonable safety systems in place as it is.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I would bet that probably 50 times as many pedestrians are killed by automobiles than light rail vehicles or subways in North America. No one talks about creating safety barriers between sidewalks and roads, or prohibiting people from crossing roads.

That's because it's impossible not to have pedestrians crossing roads used by cars. All I'm saying is, the C-Train system could have been designed far better. I see no excuse to have so many intersections involving trains, people and automobiles. Some are inevitable, but Calgary has far too many.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by zamler

That's because it's impossible not to have pedestrians crossing roads used by cars. All I'm saying is, the C-Train system could have been designed far better. I see no excuse to have so many intersections involving trains, people and automobiles. Some are inevitable, but Calgary has far too many.

Well you could have an overpass at each intersection for people to cross, or put all roads underground. Sure it would be costly, but it would probably save lives. Same logic you are using about the trains.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Well you could have an overpass at each intersection for people to cross, or put all roads underground. Sure it would be costly, but it would probably save lives. Same logic you are using about the trains.

Same logic? You don't think it's an option to put the stations underground in the downtown core, along 36th street and a few other locations? Many cities have underground transit systems and they work really well, and sure as heck free up valuable road space and don't clutter up intersections.

And I'm disappointed by people that point to automobile accidents and death, and use that to justify a poorly designed light rail transit system.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by zamler

Same logic? You don't think it's an option to put the stations underground in the downtown core, along 36th street and a few other locations? Many cities have underground transit systems and they work really well, and sure as heck free up valuable road space and don't clutter up intersections.

And I'm disappointed by people that point to automobile accidents and death, and use that to justify a poorly designed light rail transit system.

Putting rail underground doesn't mean it's automatically safer, look at the deaths in the NYC system last year. That's a largely underground system and over 30 people were killed last year. An underground system with barriers at every station would be great, but the cost factor is massive. You're making it seem like it's a simple choice when the fact is that it's not.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by zamler

That's because it's impossible not to have pedestrians crossing roads used by cars. All I'm saying is, the C-Train system could have been designed far better. I see no excuse to have so many intersections involving trains, people and automobiles. Some are inevitable, but Calgary has far too many.

I would look at Edmonton vs Calgary.

I have read that initially the province sunk the same amount of money into each system. Edmonton built the downtown underground but little track. Calgary built it above ground and built a lot more track.

I perfer Calgary's approach to building. We don't always need the best system. Instead Calgary built a functional system with some drawbacks but it is well used.

We could follow your suggested approach and have much less track, busier roads, possibly more car/car collisions and fatalities. Instead we have 3 to 4 train fatalities a year.

[Winnie]

Originally Posted by zamler

Same logic? You don't think it's an option to put the stations underground in the downtown core, along 36th street and a few other locations? Many cities have underground transit systems and they work really well, and sure as heck free up valuable road space and don't clutter up intersections.

And I'm disappointed by people that point to automobile accidents and death, and use that to justify a poorly designed light rail transit system.

maybe some sort of hovercraft system would work.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by zamler

Same logic? You don't think it's an option to put the stations underground in the downtown core, along 36th street and a few other locations? Many cities have underground transit systems and they work really well, and sure as heck free up valuable road space and don't clutter up intersections.

And I'm disappointed by people that point to automobile accidents and death, and use that to justify a poorly designed light rail transit system.

So you agree its impossible and impractical to put systems in place to avoid car/pedestrian collisions, yet by the same stroke you deem it to be entirely possible and worthwhile for the c-train.

Fact is the c-train accounts for such a minute minute minute minute amount of collisions that nearly any practical cost is better spend on safety elsewhere.

Sure, you spend $1B to bury 7th Ave, but when you're only removing ~2-3 collisions a year, its hardly worth it. You're better throwing that $1B on extra enforcement of jaywalking and other safety issues.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by valo403

Putting rail underground doesn't mean it's automatically safer, look at the deaths in the NYC system last year. That's a largely underground system and over 30 people were killed last year. An underground system with barriers at every station would be great, but the cost factor is massive. You're making it seem like it's a simple choice when the fact is that it's not.

It's hard to compare New York to Calgary. NY has an extensive system, and the ridership is quite staggering. Not to mention they have 8 times our population.

New york has 468 stations, 842 miles of track.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Ducay

So you agree its impossible and impractical to put systems in place to avoid car/pedestrian collisions, yet by the same stroke you deem it to be entirely possible and worthwhile for the c-train.

But there are many provisions for pedestrians. There is the +15, controlled crossings etc. You do what is practical and possible. The policy of putting up complicated and ugly systems above ground in congested areas to me is substandard.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by zamler

It's hard to compare New York to Calgary. NY has an extensive system, and the ridership is quite staggering. Not to mention they have 8 times our population.

New york has 468 stations, 842 miles of track.

8 times the population, around 8 times the fatalities annually.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by zamler

Same logic? You don't think it's an option to put the stations underground in the downtown core, along 36th street and a few other locations? Many cities have underground transit systems and they work really well, and sure as heck free up valuable road space and don't clutter up intersections.

And I'm disappointed by people that point to automobile accidents and death, and use that to justify a poorly designed light rail transit system.

Your following post can be used against your above bolded argument, replacing any city with a (largely) underground system with the specific example of New York City.

Originally Posted by zamler

It's hard to compare New York to Calgary. NY has an extensive system, and the ridership is quite staggering. Not to mention they have 8 times our population.

New york has 468 stations, 842 miles of track.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by valo403

8 times the population, around 8 times the fatalities annually.

But none of the downside of above ground quagmire. Yes I'm hung up on that, sue me. I don't like the ugly mess of the crossings, it ruins the cityscape IMO.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Your following post can be used against your above bolded argument, replacing any city with a (largely) underground system with the specific example of New York City.

I'm sure people will use it against me.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by zamler

But none of the downside of above ground quagmire. Yes I'm hung up on that, sue me. I don't like the ugly mess of the crossings, it ruins the cityscape IMO.

Hey now, lets not bring aesthetics or traffic into this debate; we're talking safety here and I think 99% of us would agree a buried system is way more aesthetically pleasing and frees up more road space for buses/cars.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by zamler

But none of the downside of above ground quagmire. Yes I'm hung up on that, sue me. I don't like the ugly mess of the crossings, it ruins the cityscape IMO.

So you would perfer no train on 36th avenue and no West line being built so that we could get rid of the level crossing on 7th ave and elsewhere? To me I perfer the extensive average system over a limited premium system.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by zamler

But none of the downside of above ground quagmire. Yes I'm hung up on that, sue me. I don't like the ugly mess of the crossings, it ruins the cityscape IMO.

The issue here is that this is not the issue at issue.