[PRCo] Re: Low-floor

[Phillip Clark Campbell]

> 2009/9/20 Phillip Clark Campbell <pcc_sr at yahoo.com>:
> Transit designers are not responsible for the death of
> those who choose other forms of transportation;  I
> heartily disagree this is part of the equation.

From: Joshua Dunfield <joshua.dunfield at gmail.com>
To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
Sent: Sunday, September 20, 2009 2:35:03 PM
Subject: [PRCo] Re: (no subject)



Suppose that (perhaps after a genuinely horrible transit accident)
thefolks in charge decided to cease all transit service in a city.

Are you saying that the people responsible for that decision
would not be (indirectly) responsible for the likely increase in 
traffic deaths, because none of the deaths involved transit?
Indirect responsibility is still responsibility, isn't it?

What if it was a 25% service cut instead of a 100% service cut?
Does that make the decisionmakers not responsible, because
the public should have accepted the inconvenience and 
continued riding?

What if it was a well-intentioned attempt to increase safety
that, unintentionally, inconvenienced riders, leading some to
drive instead?

It would be nice if transportation safety was simple and didn't
require weighing one set of dangers against another (always
imperfectly), but that's not how it works.

-j.
________________________________

Mr.Dunfield;

My apologies;  my paragraph above should read:
'Transit vehicle designers.'

Your comments on shutting down a transit system has nothing
to do with low-floor transit vehicles;  this is another topic altogether.
Prc abandoned everything south of Allegheny County in 1953
without replacement;  Prc is then responsible for deaths in autos
according to your reasoning.  A legal case claiming the transit
system is 'indirectly responsible' for an auto death after 
'abandoning' service  would be thrown out, never make it to
court.   I do not follow let alone endorse this logic.  Private
transit agencies could and did fail in those days;  any business,
even public, can fold.  I hope I am wrong but we just may
see transit cease in some places within the deade due
to the economy.

Mr.Schneider has interesting comments in another email that
parallel the low-floor concerns.  His comments on speed and
vehicles at intersections is logical.  I would like confirmation
that this is part of the design to withstand side impacts of
xx-mph with minor / moderate injury.  Places like Portland that
are more suburban / interurban in nature may have to deal
with vehicles traveling at higher speeds in outlying areas.

Places like SF have to retrofit an existing system to be ADA
accessible which is awkward on the surface in tight spaces.
(Ends of islands may have sand bags for impact;  better
than using 'soft people!'  This does address 'personal
responsibility' or the lack thereof doesn't it.  'Give me a soft
landing so I can drink and drive!'  The rare incident of a
motorist medical emergency can't be anticipated let alone
planned for.)

Places like Portland, San Diego, Sacramento, Salt Lake,
Denver, St.Louis and others built new systems from scratch;
except for the inner city they have ample space for ramps / lifts.
Many of these systems pre-date current ADA laws.

Yes; accidents are part of an imperfect world.  This is 'why'
I ask about protection in low-floor transit vehicles.


 Phil
Without  a   'coast'   but  not  a   'cause.'