08-22-2016, 10:21 AM
(This post was last modified: 08-22-2016, 10:26 AM by danbrotherston.)
(08-22-2016, 09:49 AM)tomh009 Wrote: A fence or railing will discourage people but it will not prevent people from unsafe crossing. A railing might drop unsafe crossings from 10% to 1%; in that case, it would be well worth while. (The numbers are purely hypothetical.)"Well worth the money" would be to install the proper access that provides the most convenient path (where the desire line is likely to be) for people to access the train. It is never a good idea to try to block people from the most convenient path, when it can instead be reasonably accommodated, which it can be in this case.
...
Single-length only. If we reach capacity, they will add frequency rather than extending the train sets, which really makes sense to me, at least for the next few decades.
Also, I'd argue it won't stop the most unsafe crossings, when people are late, and running for the train, when they might be willing to take more chances, and aren't looking as carefully.
"Single-length only", this is not exactly correct, as the previous poster noted, the platforms as constructed accommodate double length trains, but benches and shelters will only be installed for single-length trains. But no additional concrete will be needed to expand to double length trains.
"add frequency rather than extending". Do you have a source for this. While I think we might all hope for this, I was lead to believe that train sets would be extended rather than increasing frequency. Certainly operationally, this is likely the cheaper course of action.