« Prev

Slog

Next »

Another Specious Anti-Light Rail Argument

Light rail opponents are crowing today about a collision between an L.A. light rail train and a bus that turned into its path—proof, they say, that light rail is untenably dangerous. In an email to local media, rail opponent Emory Bundy wrote,

The population is smaller along the five affected miles of the MLK corridor than it is in south LA, so maimings and deaths will be less frequent than in Los Angeles. But they will occur, as Sound Transit acknowledges, buried in the fine print of its EIS. Rather than engineer the line to assure safe operations—like it intends to do in more affluent neighborhoods—Sound Transit will tell the people in the Rainier Valley to be careful, and then, when accidents occur, blame the victims for being careless. Even victims who are children, or with impaired sight or hearing.

Because the only acceptable transit system is one that never has a single accident—and, as everyone also knows, buses never have accidents, especially accidents involving disabled people or innocent children.

Nope, buses are 100% safe, unlike those dangerous, dangerous light rail trains.

Comments (21)

1

jeez, i hear the idiom "get hit by a bus" just about every day

ps i love your posts with a billion links, thanks!

Posted by jrrrl | September 19, 2008 11:03 AM
2

Light rail can even be much safer than buses, if it is elevated or underground. Too bad ours is going to be at grade through Rainier Valley. It will kill people and it didn't have to.

Posted by Brian | September 19, 2008 11:04 AM
3

Erica,
You're spot on. What light-rail opponents don't get is that DRIVING an automobile is one of the most DANGEROUS things one can do in America. It also is much more EXPENSIVE than public transit and unequivocally CONTRIBUTES to global warming. No transit system/mode is 100% safe. But, riding a bus to work is definitely safer than driving a car.

Posted by lark | September 19, 2008 11:06 AM
4

It is one of the many reasons that grade-separated transit--like the SkyTrain in Vancouver--is superior. In addition to no traffic lights to stop at, no traffic to contend with, so the trains run on time, it also means that the only deaths on SkyTrain have been the "medical emergencies" that jump in front of it from time to time.

(SkyTrain, in 20 years, has never had an accident.)

I was really surprised when I learned Sound Transit was building at-grade; it seems the immediate savings end up costing far more in the long run in terms of delays and accidents. (Plus, the US is far more car-centric; I would think people waiting at traffic lights for light rail to pass would only make them even more anti-transit...)

Posted by Cow | September 19, 2008 11:07 AM
5

You may not approve of Bundy's stance on light rail, but he's dead on (forgive the pun) with regard to why the South End got a surface line and more affluent neighborhoods didn't.

Posted by Mr. X | September 19, 2008 11:07 AM
6

Light rail is nothing but leftist social engineers trying to get us out of our cars and SUV'S. It is a socialist boondoggle that must be stopped.

The money would be better spent building more roads and freeways.

Posted by Lord Basil | September 19, 2008 11:11 AM
7

@2: It will kill people and it didn't have to.

Damn why did we get those trains with that pesky "Kill" mode enabled?

Posted by swedish fisherman | September 19, 2008 11:11 AM
8

What we could have had if our leaders could have convinced us to spend more money on transit is an elevated system that is far SAFER and can even turn a profit because it can be automated. See Sky train turns $2.72 million profit for 2006 http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=1d84aa68-1075-4b74-a435-cd8a58df070b

Posted by Brian | September 19, 2008 11:22 AM
9

Mmmmmmmm.....light rail........

Heard from Josh lately, ECB?

Posted by NapoleonXIV | September 19, 2008 11:28 AM
10

@4 When the Hiawatha line opened in Minneapolis, it caused already bad traffic along Hiawatha Ave. to get worse, adding exactly that kind of fuel to the anti-transit fire.


Posted by povertyrich | September 19, 2008 11:29 AM
11

Grade separated is definitely better, but just the fact that it's on a fixed rail line is going to mean fewer accidents. People know where the tracks are, they know to avoid them as much as possible. What are pedestrian deaths and automobile accidents like on regular train tracks (not including suicides)? A hell of a lot less than on roads, that's for sure.

Posted by keshmeshi | September 19, 2008 11:57 AM
12

@11:
Regular train tracks do not travel down busy roads for 25 or so blocks with cars and pedestrians crossing them at every intersection. In cities heavy rail trains travel much slower (5-10 MPH) though I don't know what speed Sound Transit plans to run its trains at. I would be surprised if it was below 20 MPH though.

Posted by Brian | September 19, 2008 12:06 PM
13

@12,

In the Bay Area they do. CalTrain goes through many suburban towns and intersections at top speed, and yet accidents are few and far between.

Posted by keshmeshi | September 19, 2008 12:15 PM
14

@11:
Also, part of what makes at-grade light rail so dangerous IS the fixed rail. It can't turn out of the way. It also can't stop very well since a light rail train is actually very heavy and only contacting the ground on little patches of metal on metal.

Imagine a car runs a red light at an intersection that a train is approaching. The train can't slow down or turn out of the path of the car.

Also, according to an ST ad these trains are QUIET! "You may not hear them coming."

Posted by Brian | September 19, 2008 12:20 PM
15

We could argue over just how dangerous light rail is all day. My point is it could have been made much safer by spending more money. Are people's lives worth it? What if we could also have made it profitable and eventually make up for those extra costs?

My point is pointless though because of the political reality. But when this rail line kills people remind people that we can build the next one better.

Back to the original article. I agree with Emory Bundy on his analysis, but not his conclusion (assuming it is anti-light rail, ECB doesn't give us that info in the quote). I would conclude that we should put MORE money into light rail to make it safer.

Posted by Brian | September 19, 2008 12:28 PM
16

The tracks in the Rainier Valley run down the median of the road, and there are gates and lights at every crossing. Basically, to get hit by a train, you have to be a fucking moron.

Posted by Greg | September 19, 2008 12:35 PM
17

Friggin hilarious reading ECB sarcastically state facts concerning bus accidents. Where was all that data when she was advocating for nuking the Viaduct? How many tourists do you supposed will be run down by express buses and gravel trucks flying down Alaskan Way?

Hypocrite.

Posted by uncle baggy | September 19, 2008 1:02 PM
18

Caltrain is also an abomination of San Mateo County's lack of will power to do something that made sense (BART)

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 19, 2008 1:38 PM
19

It sounds exactly like those "Save Our Valley" morons, and the idiotic emails they used to send around, only without the racism.

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | September 19, 2008 1:51 PM
20

You're HALF right, Erica...

This isn't an argument against light rail, but it is an argument against the cute little streetcar-like light rail that they ran through the Rainier Valley, and which exists in many other cities.

We need grade-separated transit in this City -- reliable and on-time. Design beautiful stations that fit into a neighborhood and draw people in and out. Don't put it in the middle of traffic!

Posted by Mickymse | September 19, 2008 2:00 PM
21

you get hit by a train, you are likely a moron. darwin in action.

go LOOK at the train tracks down rainier & mlk - it will take some real idiocy to get hit by it. i'm sure someone will manage, though.

the monorail was going to be grade-separated, but we couldn't have that, could we?

Posted by max solomon | September 19, 2008 2:05 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.