![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
Also I think this may be the best pictoral evidence of why shared lane streetcars are bad:
![Image](https://i.imgur.com/r5ZSAkv.png)
There are already 70,000+ riders/day with the Blue/Green lines. It won't take much to double that with the two extensions. So I'd say we'll be well over a hundred thousand daily riders by 2025 (easily).By 2040 we'll have well over a hundred thousand daily riders of LRT in the Twin Cities, and I'm guessing that will be a formidable constituency for grade separation downtown. I'd speculate that the Orange Line between Downtown & Lake St will be a good candidate for subway-like improvements, too, since it will be a good-quality line-haul line that basically skips over a destination-rich inner city area.
It's a funny image, but also misleading in the current context. Accidents dramatically slow all modes of transportation. If there was a wrecked car sitting in the middle of Nicollet, I doubt the buses would be on time either.I believe the intention would be to use that clear an cars in the driving lane
Also I think this may be the best pictoral evidence of why shared lane streetcars are bad:
But... can't a relief bus still come for the passengers when a street car breaks down the same way they do for the light rail? Or if a car is stuck in front of the street car? You've still proven that the only difference is that a bus can go around a car in the rare instance one breaks down in front of it. And I feel like busses break down more often than that sort of accident will occur.In the above example there's plenty of room on the road for a bus to go around the damaged car, but the streetcar doesn't have that option. If a bus breaks down it can pull over and a relief bus (Metro Transit has them on standby) can come and pick up the passengers and be on their way. With a broken down Streetcar (which is probably going to happen less often than a broken down bus) you have to tow the streetcar all the way to a maintenance bay or something.
At least we're not doing side running (right, we're not planning side running are we?) where assholes who can't park stop streetcars all the time.
Statistically, I don't know if that would hold up. Metro Transit has a very high reliability, especially when you factor in that all buses used on the route today are newer hybrid models. Accidents/breakdowns by passenger cars almost certainly have to be more common (statistically speaking).I feel like busses break down more often than that sort of accident will occur.
Well, as long as they don't do side running, they can place crossovers periodically so later streetcars can get around. But again, rare occurrence.But subsequent streetcars will also be stuck behind the broken one, whereas a bus could go around. But streetcars breaking down will be a rare occurrence.
I'll say I've been on exactly 1 bus there was an accident on the road where the bus had to pull around that a streetcar would have been unable to avoid. I've never been on a bus that's broken down. Anecdotally [] traffic blocking the path is infinitely more likely.
Because most of us weren't of age yet.Why didn't we make these arguments when the street grids were being co-opted by freeways? "Now a single jackknifed semi could stop all auto traffic for miles!"
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests