Metro West pedestrian crossings

HelterSkelter

Was just reading the Q&A on Metro West and found this answer which says that there will be pedestrian crossings on the line. I thought this was bad practice and the new "best practice" way to design train lines is to have no level crossings or pedestrian crossings and use bridges instead.


http://www.rpa.ie/?id=328

Q. How will people cross Metro West if it runs on the surface?
A. Metro West will operate on the surface in much the same manner as the existing Luas. This means that in some sections pedestrians will be able to cross the track when it is safe to do so. Such locations will be where specific crossing points are provided, at all stops, and where the track has been constructed through a pedestrian friendly area.

MLM

Metro? Sounds more like a LUAS line, but with a fancy name and longer trams.

monument

Both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries define ‘metro’ regarding to transport as “underground railway” systems, deriving from the French for Metropolitan Railway.

Just on personal experience that would exclude much of LA’s Metro, DC’s Metro, and a lot of the London Underground.

While Wikipedia’s clause for ‘grade separation’ at least excludes parts of the LA Metro (rail), which has at least one line with at-grade intersections with streets.

As I’ve said before here I prefer the US model where ‘Metro’ is merely a brand, but a brand for all of a city’s transport. What ever about sub-branding of ‘bus’, ‘rail’ etc, having different branding on different forms of public transport is a bad start for integrated transport.

MLM wrote:

Metro? Sounds more like a LUAS line, but with a fancy name and longer trams.

I’m a bit confused here.

A worldwide recognised term in public transport is a “fancy name”, while the newly created ‘Luas’ brand isn’t?

Slice

monument: As I’ve said before here I prefer the US model where ‘Metro’ is merely a brand, but a brand for all of a city’s transport.

It could be worse; we could have a metro in the Belfast sense of the word where it just means poxy bus services.

The Manilla Metro in the Philippines is an example of another metro that is not grade seperated.

cyclopath2001

HelterSkelter wrote:

Was just reading the Q&A on Metro West and found this answer which says that there will be pedestrian crossings on the line. I thought this was bad practice and the new "best practice" way to design train lines is to have no level crossings or pedestrian crossings and use bridges instead.
http://www.rpa.ie/?id=328

I think level crossings are more convenient for the elderly and mobility-impaired.

MLM

monument wrote:

Both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries define ‘metro’ regarding to transport as “underground railway” systems, deriving from the French for Metropolitan Railway.

Just on personal experience that would exclude much of LA’s Metro, DC’s Metro, and a lot of the London Underground.

While Wikipedia’s clause for ‘grade separation’ at least excludes parts of the LA Metro (rail), which has at least one line with at-grade intersections with streets.

As I’ve said before here I prefer the US model where ‘Metro’ is merely a brand, but a brand for all of a city’s transport. What ever about sub-branding of ‘bus’, ‘rail’ etc, having different branding on different forms of public transport is a bad start for integrated transport.



I’m a bit confused here.

A worldwide recognised term in public transport is a “fancy name”, while the newly created ‘Luas’ brand isn’t?

My idea of a Metro would be similar that what is in place in London and Paris where much of it is underground, trains have right of way; and you don't have pedestrian crossings or on-street running, as is suggested in the RPA Q+A. Metro West sounds very similar to LUAS.