C-Train Accident

[GQNammer]

Here's the solution.

1. At each train station, hire 2 kids who's graduated from cross walk patrol back in elementary. (these guys know they're stuff)

2. Have a reputable institution *insert any elementary school here* write up an exam on "How to cross roads safely."

3. Hirees need to pass this exam once a month in order to work these crosswalks at these c-train stations.

4. These kids will each be armed with a walkie talkie so they can tell the kids at the next c-train station when a train is on the way. They will also be armed with big red stop signs.

Don't worry guys, I've done the math. This is fail proof. Write your city officials to get this passed.

/sign

[Guillermo]

Originally posted by Go4Long


http://pedestrianobservations.wordpr...e-rail-safety/

or the cliff notes:


still digging for pedestrian specific data...keep in mind this data INCLUDES pedestrians struck by passenger trains, and also keep in mind that this number is just fatalities, and a train hitting a pedestrian or another car has a much higher likelihood of causing a fatality than a car hitting a pedestrian or another car. their numbers for accidents are even better than mine according to this pdf

http://www.calgarytransit.com/pdf/Ca...RB_revised.pdf

but we're not just interested in deaths, were also interested in all accidents and injuries that would be prevented by not having at-grade crossings.

even if there are less accidents/injuries/deaths with train crossings, it doesn't mean we should say "it's fine" and not try to continue improving it. if our brightest minds and our leaders had that mentality, we would still be hunters and gathers following herds of prey across the world.

[Go4Long]

Now I'm confused...I thought you said we were the herd.

[masoncgy]

Arguing for the sake of arguing, you have to love the internet.

[clem24]

Originally posted by Go4Long


your percentages are a little off...



even without factoring weekend ridership that's 65'676'000 revenue riders a year...even if you call it 50 accidents a year(which is absurdly high) that's only 1 accident per 1313520 revenue riders, or 0.0000008% give or take.

Wait that means it's right -> 99.9% rounded = 99.8999992%

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by clem24


Wait that means it's right -> 99.9% rounded = 99.8999992%

lol...yeah, that rounding off only cost a million lives :P and correct me if I'm wrong...but that would be 99.9999992% which would round off to 100% YAYYYYYYY no one got hurt

[calgarydub]

You can't save all youth... some of them just slip between the cracks

[Ruggzy_McTuggz]

Originally posted by Maxt

Whats human life worth?

Actual Cash Value (ACV) or Replacement Cost?

If we are talking ACV you would want to take the age of the woman, divide by average life span to account for depreciation and multiply by the cost of a Russian mail order bride.

Either way, not even close to 1.5B

You've just been adjusted.

[M.alex]

I'm not reading all of this thread, so here's my thoughts: we let the c-train keep squishing people who are stupid enough to walk into the path of an object that can kill them.

[frinkprof]

I know this is a bit dated, but I had read this when it was posted, but didn't have time to respond at that time and made a mental note to bring it up again when I could.

Originally posted by kenny


I think you misunderstood, nobody is saying to move the tracks. There no arguing that trains are dangerous, so why not reduce the interaction between pedestrian and trains by building pedestrian overpasses over the tracks?

An example Anderson LRT station. When it first opened, there was one way in/out of the station and it was through a set of doors, up the escalator, over the tracks then down the escalator. Then, they added in a second access to the platform on the other end by taking down the fence and paving a path across the tracks. Not necessary, and more dangerous. CT claims there isn't much they can do to increase safety, and this is where I disagree.

In the case of Anderson Station (actually most of the 1981 south line stations), retrofitting the pedestrian level crossings in the early 1990s was for two reasons. The first was to allow for an accessible access. The south line station heads had been made with no elevators, with only the upstairs-over the tracks-downstairs to platform access. The second reason was that every station but Anderson had its main and at that time only entrance at one end of the platform. This created loading/unloading issues because most people would crowd onto/off of the train car closest to the station head enclosures. When the northeast line was built, this was mitigated by having the station heads alternate ends as you go along the line, and then the northwest line used a different scaled-down design theme with multiple entrances at most stations. The monolithic station heads of south line stations, and to an extent the northeast stations have been seen to not be the greatest idea in the world for a few reasons and this is why there won't be many more of this type of station built.

The thing is that access to the stations and other factors such as loading/unloading and station access/egress are important things to consider for the system. Safety factors have to be weighed against the benefits that these other things bring, and in many cases, the slight reduction in safety isn't seen as enough to go without the benefits attained by choosing different certain options.

In fact, you will see certain stations redesigned/rebuilt that will feature more prominent pedestrian crossings. For example, Chinook Station will be shut down for a few weeks next year, the old station head building will be demolished and a new station pedestrian crossings at both ends will be rebuilt in its place and no overpasses with capacity for 4 LRV trains. Anderson Station at one time was slated for a similar treatment, but I'm not sure if that will happen as part of this round of refurbishments.

[Mibz]

Originally posted by frinkprof
The second reason was that every station but Anderson had its main and at that time only entrance at one end of the platform. This created loading/unloading issues because most people would crowd onto/off of the train car closest to the station head enclosures. When the northeast line was built, this was mitigated by having the station heads alternate ends as you go along the line, and then the northwest line used a different scaled-down design theme with multiple entrances at most stations.

Wow. That's the most logical thinking I've ever seen come out of Calgary Transit.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by Mibz
Wow. That's the most logical thinking I've ever seen come out of Calgary Transit.

Whomever thought of that must have been fired shortly after implementation.

[kenny]

Originally posted by frinkprof
The thing is that access to the stations and other factors such as loading/unloading and station access/egress are important things to consider for the system. Safety factors have to be weighed against the benefits that these other things bring, and in many cases, the slight reduction in safety isn't seen as enough to go without the benefits attained by choosing different certain options.

Technically Anderson was handicap accessible (you just had to go a loooooong way around to access the ramp from Southwood)

I guess this was my point. When adding the second access point, they could have done something more elaborate than cutting a hole in the fence and built a proper elevated crossing that would retain the safety and provide the extra convenience.

Have to build for the lowest common denominator.

[TimG]

For example, Chinook Station will be shut down for a few weeks next year, the old station head building will be demolished and a new station pedestrian crossings at both ends will be rebuilt in its place and no overpasses with capacity for 4 LRV trains.

a few weeks to rebuild chinook?

yeah right.

it took months to do canyon meadows and southland

[Sugarphreak]

...

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

+1

Sounds suspiciously like a Nenshi promise

Do you feel he is in the habit of making unrealistic promises, or making them and breaking them?

[frinkprof]

Originally posted by TimG


a few weeks to rebuild chinook?

yeah right.

it took months to do canyon meadows and southland

Yeah you're right, the timeline was a guess on my part, I should have said "several." Maybe a couple or three months or so.

[frinkprof]

Originally posted by kenny
I guess this was my point. When adding the second access point, they could have done something more elaborate than cutting a hole in the fence and built a proper elevated crossing that would retain the safety and provide the extra convenience.

Have to build for the lowest common denominator.

Would that "extra convenience" really be provided in such a scenario though? What would be required would be another pedestrian overpass 15+ feet in the air in addition to either an elevator or a long ramp for wheelchair users. Frankly, for the slight reduction in safety, these are a huge pain in the ass as an LRT user and pedestrian when compared to the simple level crossing.

It may seem like no big deal to have people do the "walk upstairs- cross a small bridge-walk downstairs to the platform" routine, but these things really do deter people from using the system and would cost a sum to build at all the stations to boot. Given the small negatives associated with the level crossings in question (the ones at the opposite ends of the stations), they are the more preferable option. The ped-overpass-built-in designs of the original south line and northeast line stations really are a folly for this reason.

Actually, the Shaganappi Point Station on the new West Line was originally going to have a pedestrian overpass as its only access point and this was changed during the community consultation phase, although for different reasons than above, as I gather. At any rate, I had lamented the new design with a level crosswalk access to the station on account of safety. Not so much from trains, but by vehicular traffic on Bow Trail since the station is in the median. However, the usability argument for the new design is legitimate.