Comment 72431

By John Neary (registered) | Posted December 20, 2011 at 22:21:22 in reply to Comment 72417

@mystoneycreek:

So I'm curious how this concept of 'lower-speeds are good' fits in with LRT philosophies that include the need to have dedicated, right-of-way lanes, getting people from one side of the city to the other in the shortest possible time, that sort of thing.

In the meantime, maybe you could answer the question I posed at the top of this discussion...?

I'll bite, although since you are a smart guy I find it hard to believe that this question is meant to be anything other than rhetorical.

First, each LRT vehicle has the potential to take dozens or hundreds of personal automobiles off the street, thereby reducing the total high-speed traffic burden. Secondly, dedicated rights of way and signal preference don't typically allow LRT vehicles to travel faster than our current speed limits; they just reduce the amount of time spent at rest or at very low speeds. Thirdly, the dedicated right of way minimizes conflict between LRT and incompatible uses (e.g. me crashing my bike when my tire gets stuck in the track). Finally, LRT operators are held to a much higher standard of training than operators of personal automobiles.

No one's talking about putting LRT on streets that currently have low-volume, low-speed traffic.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds