Re: “Anti-LRT argument is off the rails,” Letters, July 28.
Letter writer Malcolm Johnston mentions a study by a professor which “found that SkyTrain was a far greater burden on the ecology than LRT.”
Academia who are adamantly opposed to SkyTrain construction, i.e. due to its high fiscal price, come at a rate of a dime a dozen. SkyTrain is a greater burden on the environment than is LRT only during SkyTrain’s admittedly time-consuming construction. However, when considered in the long run, many years from now, SkyTrain will nonetheless undoubtedly have been the most ecologically beneficial choice.
Johnston also writes that “with light rail, computer glitches do not stop service,” as such would do to the automated SkyTrain. True, but the stoppage of the heart of an on-board light-rail operator would likely cause severe passenger injury, perhaps even death.
Light rail cuts across many streets and thus negatively affects (via traffic lights) stop-and-go, fossil-fuel-emitting traffic. Why, when there’s a completely non-obtrusive elevated-and-underground option such as SkyTrain, which doesn’t create more traffic gridlock and pollution?
As long as SkyTrain is more expensive to build, there’ll be fewer governments willing to splurge for this superior form of mass transportation.
Frank G. Sterle, Jr.