Do we really need these barriers?
Which barriers, Sharon's unsafe el-cheapo models or the internationally accepted quality of barriers (at a supposed price tag of over half a billion dollars)?
It really comes down to a cost-benefit question (like pretty well everything in infrastructure spending).
Pros:
- the barriers will greatly reduce or even eliminate subway suicides;
- with ATC, they will allow for greater efficiency for those entering and leaving the subway;
- if full height, they will allow for the potential to heat/cool station platforms for passenger comfort.
Cons:
- big cost;
- passenger inconvenience during installation periods.
So the questions:
If they are being pushed heavily for the safety aspect (preventing suicides), then is that really an effective use of funds? How many suicides could be prevented if even just a fraction of those funds (say $100 million) were put to mental health expenditures? I'd wager it would be a lot more than the 18 or so who jump in front of a subway. It is far better to address the cause than to try and prevent one of the symptoms.
If the safety issue is just a bonus with the real intention to speed train travel, then what capacity improvements could be achieved by putting those funds towards a DRL or more surface transit?
At an estimated cost of $2 billion for the shortest DRL proposal, platform screens are the equivalent of over 25% of that total. Would the increased efficiency be anywhere close to 25% of that achieved by constructing even a limited DRL (say from Danforth to just west of downtown)?