Quote:
Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture
so.
many.
posts.
|
Sorry about that (I've added a picture to this one so hopefully that appeases things somewhat). They (aberdeen and migrant), keep disagreeing with me and not referencing points I've made earlier that already disagree with them, so I have to continuously repeat myself. They are disagreeing with me, and there is a misunderstanding of missed perceptions...so I have to continuously defend myself....Case in point:
I have been in large Canadian companies my entire life and Reliability as a practice is always misunderstood and because of that politicized.
Forgetting about that for one second: Most of my posts have been that the LRT decision for segregation to UBC has been politicized because of fear and because reliability of the system (in terms of time spent, bus bunching, traffic, TSP, right turn lanes, bus berths etc, etc) is not fully understood. And it should be.
I will apologize before this post that I am posting, but I am being beaten like a dead horse here. That is perspective for you. So, I expect that aberdeen and migrant will continue bashing me, but there are tonnes of documents in the old industry of transit reliability and this post is talking about another document where the american metropolitan authority created a very old document on policy decisions around just what I've been saying this whole time: Whether to at grade separate LRT. My problem is that I don't see anyone, anywhere doing this right for the UBC Rail Rapid Transit studies. I'm not biased towards the outcome, but I am biased about how they are holding up a licked finger in the air and proclaiming common sense when there is no common sense to LRT loading time at stops.
I posted some other document
from the European Metropolitan Transport Authority that was called "Light Rail Explained" (
https://www.emta.com/IMG/pdf/light_rail_report.pdf) and it basically talked about how reliability is the main factor for light rail over buses and how train loading time is a major difference between buses and light rail even without segregation (and because Canada doesn't have an metropolitan transport authority and maybe it should -> Montreal is the canadian city belonging to the European Transport Authority along with the usual suspects of busier cities than ours: London, Madrid, Paris etc..).
This document is all about whether to grade separate or not. That's what I mean. I don't see us doing this at all. It would put a non-politicized final nail in the coffin of skytrain or not to UBC. Hell, it could be a transfer to a segregated system that is not a skytrain as well, but I don't have a clue why someone would want to do that, but there is always some benefits and costs to every decision.
"Grade crossing policy for light rail"
https://media.metro.net/about_us/library/images/Grade%20Crossing%20for%20Light%20Rail%20Transit.pdf
Metropolitan Transport Authority
HEre is the initial screening. Seems very simple..after that would be some more engineering. All of this is cheap. This is common sense to me. Talking about things that might happen and creating fear is not common sense and that's all I've been saying.
Click on this link for an initial screening assessment of at grade feasibility that was thought through (by some smart folks) in 2003. Maybe things have changed slightly..I dunno.
https://www.amazon.ca/clouddrive/folder/...bw_cg_y9o3rsd_1a1_w&_encoding=UTF8&mgh=1
Threaded Mode