passenger behavior
Lee Winson
> A sign that used to be mounted so that passengers arriving on the platform
> at a Market Street El station saw it prominently used to read,
> "There's usually more room in the rear cars."
> I guess this was about as effective as the "WALK-DON'T RUN -- Take time to
> be safe" signs that still hang over Locust Street PATCO entrances, or the
> recently-installed decals that read "As a courtesy to others, please take
> your trash with you."
In NYC, the signs read "Walk don't run, a fall is no fun". Didn't help.
For years SEPTA, and PTC before it have tried to encourage riders to move
to the rear of buses. Nothing seemed to work. I'm not sure if any
other cities have had better luck, I've seen crowded fronts and empty
rears on buses in NYC, Washington, and Chicago.
Ironically, on some bus stops in Philadelphia, passengers line up in
an orderly fashion rather than just crowd on. I don't know how or
why these traditions started at these particular bus stops, but they
do exist, and stay on their own. (One example was the 18 express, and
there are a few routes at Bridge Pratt.) It's weird one route could
have a nice line, but a nearby one have a free-for-all crowd.
I submit the only way to change ingrained rider behaivor would be via
an aggressive public relations campaign. SEPTA would have to saturate
vehicles with instructional signage, backed up with TV and radio spots.
On implementation day, SEPTA would need to have LOTS of extra people
out on the system reminding people to obey. This would go on for a
while until people got into the habit regularly. Periodic reminders
would be necessary to maintain the flow.
West Philly Slumlord
Lee Winson (lwi...@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote:
: I submit the only way to change ingrained rider behaivor would be via
: an aggressive public relations campaign. SEPTA would have to saturate
: vehicles with instructional signage, backed up with TV and radio spots.
: On implementation day, SEPTA would need to have LOTS of extra people
: out on the system reminding people to obey. This would go on for a
: while until people got into the habit regularly. Periodic reminders
: would be necessary to maintain the flow.
Although I wouldn't go as far as to say "the ONLY way," public relations
is extremely important and probably underated by most transit agencies.
If SEPTA could do an effective campaign, the efficencies gained would more
than pay for the cost of advertising.
--
Herbert Chan
Civil Engineering '99
University of Pennsylvania
Mike
On 1 Mar 1998 20:32:08 GMT, lwi...@bbs.cpcn.com (Lee Winson) wrote:
>> A sign that used to be mounted so that passengers arriving on the platform
>> at a Market Street El station saw it prominently used to read,
>> "There's usually more room in the rear cars."
>> I guess this was about as effective as the "WALK-DON'T RUN -- Take time to
>> be safe" signs that still hang over Locust Street PATCO entrances, or the
>> recently-installed decals that read "As a courtesy to others, please take
>> your trash with you."
>
>In NYC, the signs read "Walk don't run, a fall is no fun". Didn't help.
>
>For years SEPTA, and PTC before it have tried to encourage riders to move
>to the rear of buses. Nothing seemed to work. I'm not sure if any
>other cities have had better luck, I've seen crowded fronts and empty
>rears on buses in NYC, Washington, and Chicago.
>
>Ironically, on some bus stops in Philadelphia, passengers line up in
>an orderly fashion rather than just crowd on. I don't know how or
>why these traditions started at these particular bus stops, but they
>do exist, and stay on their own. (One example was the 18 express, and
>there are a few routes at Bridge Pratt.) It's weird one route could
>have a nice line, but a nearby one have a free-for-all crowd.
>
>
>I submit the only way to change ingrained rider behaivor would be via
>an aggressive public relations campaign. SEPTA would have to saturate
>vehicles with instructional signage, backed up with TV and radio spots.
>On implementation day, SEPTA would need to have LOTS of extra people
>out on the system reminding people to obey. This would go on for a
>while until people got into the habit regularly. Periodic reminders
>would be necessary to maintain the flow.
It really depends on the people boarding the bus and the location. For
example, I've boarded the 18 bus, full of high school students and the
driver had to get up and practically scream for the people to move
back. After taking the 55 route, a block further down Olney Avenue,
the people go right to the back of the bus if no seats are available.
Also, on the 55 one day, people were standing in front of the yellow
line ready to get off the bus; the driver looked insulted and played
the 'Please Stand Behind The Yellow Line For Safety' recording five
times in a row. I never saw a point to the latter example, but then
again I wasn't driving the bus.
Mike
-----------------------------------------------
Mike
The SEPTA Fan Page: http://www.voicenet.com/~lord/
Remove the *'s to reply. They are there to thwart spammers.
George Robbins
In article <6dcrap$mub$1...@netnews.upenn.edu>, West Philly Slumlord wrote:
>Lee Winson (lwi...@bbs.cpcn.com) wrote:
>
>: I submit the only way to change ingrained rider behaivor would be via
>: an aggressive public relations campaign. SEPTA would have to saturate
>: vehicles with instructional signage, backed up with TV and radio spots.
>: On implementation day, SEPTA would need to have LOTS of extra people
>: out on the system reminding people to obey. This would go on for a
>: while until people got into the habit regularly. Periodic reminders
>: would be necessary to maintain the flow.
>
>is extremely important and probably underated by most transit agencies.
>If SEPTA could do an effective campaign, the efficencies gained would more
>than pay for the cost of advertising.
Actually things like signage are important so that well-intentioned
folks do have a reference for the rules or so that they have something
to point at when someone else is being abusive.
Of couse, signs aren't neccessarily effective (at all), but not having
any signs or advisories is guaranteed to be ineffective.
--
George Robbins - now working for work: g...@netaxs.com
Net Access - seemed like the best uucp: ...!uunet!netaxs.com!grr
way to help improve service... play: g...@tharsis.com
ctr...@hotmail.com
In article <34fa1b6e...@netnews.voicenet.com>,
*lo...@voicenet.com* (Mike) wrote:
> Also, on the 55 one day, people were standing in front of the yellow
> line ready to get off the bus; the driver looked insulted and played
> the 'Please Stand Behind The Yellow Line For Safety' recording five
> times in a row. I never saw a point to the latter example, but then
> again I wasn't driving the bus.
You're right.... you are not driving the bus.... but that's another story =)
In all seriousness, the driver was correct in his actions by playing that
recording to have people stand behind the yellow line. People need to
understand that the yellow line is there so the driver can safely see the rear
of the bus, which with a standing load is very difficult.
I was on the El a few weeks ago.... I had asked some people standing in the
aisle to move in order to let people on at 11th. Some of these people looked
at me like I had three heads or something. Hey, it was either that or start
pushing and shoving (which would not sit too well).
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Burton Benenson
Hey, don't get me started on my pet peeves regarding SEPTA
passenger behavior!
Some examples:
Standing in front of the doors of the el or subway even when there's
plenty of room in the aisles or even empty seats.
Standing in the well of the center door on the bus.
Sitting on that bar alongside the doors of the el with their ass on the
shoulders of the person sitting on the other side.
Leaning up against the turnstile entrance to the subway (at stations where
the entrance is on the same level as the train platform, i.e., Hunting
Park and C. B. Moore), blocking others from entering.
And, of course, the ever-popular practice of seeing how many seats one
can take up with arms, legs, and personal possessions spread everywhere.
Ray Madison
On 1 Mar 1998, Lee Winson wrote:
> > A sign that used to be mounted so that passengers arriving on the platform
> > at a Market Street El station saw it prominently used to read,
> > "There's usually more room in the rear cars."
> > I guess this was about as effective as the "WALK-DON'T RUN -- Take time to
> > be safe" signs that still hang over Locust Street PATCO entrances, or the
> > recently-installed decals that read "As a courtesy to others, please take
> > your trash with you."
>
> In NYC, the signs read "Walk don't run, a fall is no fun". Didn't help.
>
> For years SEPTA, and PTC before it have tried to encourage riders to move
> to the rear of buses. Nothing seemed to work. I'm not sure if any
> other cities have had better luck, I've seen crowded fronts and empty
> rears on buses in NYC, Washington, and Chicago.
>
> Ironically, on some bus stops in Philadelphia, passengers line up in
> an orderly fashion rather than just crowd on. I don't know how or
> why these traditions started at these particular bus stops, but they
> do exist, and stay on their own. (One example was the 18 express, and
> there are a few routes at Bridge Pratt.) It's weird one route could
> have a nice line, but a nearby one have a free-for-all crowd.
>
>
> I submit the only way to change ingrained rider behaivor would be via
> an aggressive public relations campaign. SEPTA would have to saturate
> vehicles with instructional signage, backed up with TV and radio spots.
> On implementation day, SEPTA would need to have LOTS of extra people
> out on the system reminding people to obey. This would go on for a
> while until people got into the habit regularly. Periodic reminders
> would be necessary to maintain the flow.
>
>
Hi!!
You bring up some very good points!! You're correct about the Rt. 18
Express (Evenings). This only started since the Olney Transportation
Center was built about 7 years ago. In the past, it was "mob city" like
other routes. My only guess for the orderly fashion is because of the
limited paving for passengers to stand on, and the several routes that
depart from that location.
About the old subway signs "There's usually more room in rear (or end)
cars", at one time that was true, but these days, like myself, I like to
position myself so that when the train arrives at my destination, the door
I exit by is closest to the staircase I want to use. That prevents me from
walking the platform, thereby saving valuable time, especially if I have a
connection to make. I've lived in Philadelphia all except 8 years of my
life, and have dealt with public transportation 85% of the time, and as a
passenger, you figure ways to make life more tolerable while getting
around, especially during rush hour. On some trains, end cars are just as
crowded as the center cars of a train, so you make the best of it. My
strategy is simply this - Knowing what stair I want to use at my
destination, I position myself to get on the train at the car that's going
to stop closest to the stair. I position myself at the spot where a door
is likely to stop at. At the train approaches & stops, I've already picked
three choices of where I'm going to sit, usually near a door. If there are
no seats available, I pick an area to stand where my back is to the wall,
or corner, that way I won't have to move as paople get on. About twp stops
wawy, I move to the door, and when it opens at my stop, I'm right in front
of the escalator, and I'm the first one off. After you do this a few
times, you know where the train is going to stop - those yellow tags with
numbers from 2 to 6 stretched out along the platform tell the motorman
where to stop the train, based on the number of cars he's pulling.
Estimating the length, I know where a door is likely to stop. Some
motormen pull "long" or "short", and you may miss your mark, but there's
ways to make up for it. If you ride the same train daily, and get the same
motorman, you KNOW where he/she is going to stop the train, and you adjust
your position accordingly.
About the crowds on a bus that just won't move back - I've seen some
drivers just keep the bus stopped until people move out of the way. It's
true, there may be a standing crowd in the front & middle of the bus,
while there are empty seats in the back. In that situation, I try to be
the first on a bus, and move the the back of the bus (especially if I have
a long ride). I hate having people moving around me, and having to move
around people, so I try to situate myself so that I don't have to move
until I get to my stop. It's good to have a basic knowledge of the city so
you don't have to rely on directions from someone. People have a way of
giving bad directions that can cost you time & money. I still have to ask
directions from time to time, because I don't know EVERY part of
Philadelphia. I even get bad directions from SEPTA from time to time. In
that case, I'll ask two or three people, and if I get the same directions
from more than one person, I'll go with that. As I approach my
destination, I'll ask the driver or just keep a look out.
And that's my story
Ray Madison
(Black Saber)
Philadelphia, Pa, U.S.A.
Kevin Smith
These are all examples of HUMAN behavior and are not related to
SEPTA. People block the doors getting into elavators, people stand
in the middle of store aisles while they converse or ponder their
next purchase. Anywhere people have to sit (airports, train stations,
theaters, ...) they stake out space around themselves.
--
Do two rights make | Kevin Smith, ShadeTree Software, Philadelpha, PA, USA
a libertarian | 001-215-487-3811 shady.com,kevin bbs.cpcn.com,sysop
Marianne Das
: : an aggressive public relations campaign. SEPTA would have to saturate
: : vehicles with instructional signage, backed up with TV and radio spots.
: : On implementation day, SEPTA would need to have LOTS of extra people
: : out on the system reminding people to obey. This would go on for a
: : while until people got into the habit regularly. Periodic reminders
: : would be necessary to maintain the flow.
Not necessarily. I was on the 42 bus recently when some passengers were
eating and smoking. A disembodied, computerized voice told them, "For the
comfort of all passengers, eating, drinking and smoking are prohibited on
all SEPTA vehicles." The offending passengers stopped, and no one mugged
the driver.
Marianne
mari...@netaxs.com
Burton Benenson
Kevin Smith (kbs=new...@shady.com) wrote:
: These are all examples of HUMAN behavior and are not related to
: SEPTA. People block the doors getting into elavators, people stand
: in the middle of store aisles while they converse or ponder their
: next purchase. Anywhere people have to sit (airports, train stations,
: theaters, ...) they stake out space around themselves.
: --
: Do two rights make | Kevin Smith, ShadeTree Software, Philadelpha, PA, USA
: a libertarian | 001-215-487-3811 shady.com,kevin bbs.cpcn.com,sysop
You're right, of course. This kind of behavior isn't confined to
SEPTA. I was just referring to some of the inconsiderate human behavior
that one sees when riding SEPTA. I just wonder if people are getting worse
or am I getting crotchety in my old age and noticing these things more.
I suspect it's a little of both.
Kevin Smith
In article <6dkg39$8vg$1...@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> p...@tornado.temple.edu (Burton Benenson) writes:
>Kevin Smith (kbs=new...@shady.com) wrote:
>
>: These are all examples of HUMAN behavior and are not related to
>: SEPTA. People block the doors getting into elavators, people stand
>: in the middle of store aisles while they converse or ponder their
>: next purchase. Anywhere people have to sit (airports, train stations,
>: theaters, ...) they stake out space around themselves.
>
>SEPTA. I was just referring to some of the inconsiderate human behavior
>that one sees when riding SEPTA. I just wonder if people are getting worse
>or am I getting crotchety in my old age and noticing these things more.
>I suspect it's a little of both.
Thank you for your reply. My personal belief is that human behavior has
changed little over our recorded history. It has been stated repeatedly,
throughout history, that that the world has gone to hell in whoever's
lifetime. I guess we've been to hell and back at least a thousand times.
It's kinda like a car chase/race in the movies. The guy keeps shifing
gears and racing the motor, but after all that, instead of going 500
miles an hour he's still just putting along.
Everything is always changing and there are local positives and
netatives. It's easy to just add up the negatives and come to the
conclusion that everything is always getting worse.
Miltone
there was a time when there were two employees on each car. one drove and the
other collected the fares. If there were another employee to monitor the
unwashed then we would have less to complain about.
Chris Wallgren
...and a much larger fare to pay.
Miltone (mil...@aol.com) wrote:
: there was a time when there were two employees on each car. one drove and the
: other collected the fares. If there were another employee to monitor the
: unwashed then we would have less to complain about.
--
Christopher Wallgren
University of Pennsylvania
Transportation Engineering
Class of 1999
Lee Winson
Sometimes I wonder if they should go back to two-man cars, partly for
loading speed, and partly for security by having a crewman in the back
of the car or bus.
Colin R. Leech
It's an awfully expensive solution. Apart from the capital cost, you could
use that money more productively to double the frequency of service.
For loading speed, if there are a few stops that are really busy, it would
be cheaper and easier to have somebody stationed at that stop to allow
passengers to board by the rear doors. Most new LRT systems and commuter
rail systems (and artic buses in Ottawa) use a POP system with roving fare
inspectors, to speed up boardings at busy stops.
--
#### |\^/| Colin R. Leech ag414 or crl...@freenet.carleton.ca
#### _|\| |/|_ Civil engineer by training, transport planner by choice.
#### > < Opinions are my own. You may consider them shareware.
#### >_./|\._< "If you can't return a favour, pass it on." - A.L. Brown
Miltone
>...and a much larger fare to pay.
Miltone (mil...@aol.com) wrote:
: there was a time when there were two employees on each car. one drove and
the other collected the fares. If there were another employee to monitor the
unwashed then we would have less to complain about.<
It the long run it may be cheaper to have two men on the car. I suspect a
major reaseon for avoiding public transportation is fear of assault, vermin,
mentally ill, etc. Having a 2 men crew might cut down on some of the more
obnoxious behavior and thus increase ridership lowering the fare.
Milton E. Botwinick [professional genealogist]
mil...@aol.com Philadelphia, PA
http://members.aol.com/botwinick commmercial
http://members.aol.com/botwinick/botwin.htm family
West Philly Slumlord
Miltone (mil...@aol.com) wrote:
: >...and a much larger fare to pay.
: It the long run it may be cheaper to have two men on the car. I suspect a
: major reaseon for avoiding public transportation is fear of assault, vermin,
: mentally ill, etc. Having a 2 men crew might cut down on some of the more
: obnoxious behavior and thus increase ridership lowering the fare.
Take SEPTA's present labor bill and double it. Figure how many
additional riders we would need to pay for these extra employees.
Lisa or Jeff
Per MB's post...
> It the long run it may be cheaper to have two men on the car. I suspect a
> major reaseon for avoiding public transportation is fear of assault, vermin,
> mentally ill, etc. Having a 2 men crew might cut down on some of the more
> obnoxious behavior and thus increase ridership lowering the fare.
Your bad experiences may be colored by boarding PATCO at Collingswood.
Collingswood is a filthy slum. Makes Camden look like paradise.
Kevin Smith
In article <6e1sqo$kjl$2...@netnews.upenn.edu> chan...@blue.seas.upenn.edu (West Philly Slumlord) writes:
>Miltone (mil...@aol.com) wrote:
>: >...and a much larger fare to pay.
>
>: major reaseon for avoiding public transportation is fear of assault, vermin,
>: mentally ill, etc. Having a 2 men crew might cut down on some of the more
>: obnoxious behavior and thus increase ridership lowering the fare.
If you wanted to double the number of people I'd rather see them put
into increasing service anyway. I suspect the major reason of avoiding
public transportation is fear of the unknown.
>Take SEPTA's present labor bill and double it. Figure how many
>additional riders we would need to pay for these extra employees.
Rail crews aren't any where near half the labor force.
ctr...@hotmail.com
[Apologies in advance to the nyc.transit NG for the first couple of paragraphs
-- this relates to an article in phl.transportation, however the point in the
latter part of the message relates to NYC subway operations.]
In article <6e1vjb$q...@netaxs.com>,
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa or Jeff) wrote:
> Your bad experiences may be colored by boarding PATCO at Collingswood.
>
> Collingswood is a filthy slum. Makes Camden look like paradise.
Excuse me? What planet are you looking at?
Have you ever been to Collingswood?
If Collingswood is a "filthy slum" then I have a bridge in Tacony for sale....
I have been to Collingswood several times. I have NEVER thought it was a
slum. Now Camden, that's another story....
{Getting back on topic}
Two man operations are a drain on a transit authority resources. SEPTA is
getting with the program by eliminating the conductor on the El with the
introduction of the M-4 cars. (One question -- before the Kawasaki cars
arrived in the 1980's, were Broad Street Line trains run using one or two
people?)
In New York, the MTA/NYC Transit plans to use OPTO (One Person Train
Operation) on the G train on weekends. The TWU Local 100 obviously opposes
the move, as does several line users in Brooklyn. The residents are concerned
about overcrowded trains since it is MTA policy to use no more than 4 cars on
OPTO lines. NYCT has used OPTO on smaller shuttle trains such as the Times
Square - Grand Central Shuttle and the Franklin Ave. Shuttle. (This info
comes courtesy of Tri State Transportation Campaign's "Mobilizing the Region"
newsletter.)
Michael Justice
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:20:42 -0600, ctr...@hotmail.com wrote:
[snip philly story]
>In New York, the MTA/NYC Transit plans to use OPTO (One Person Train
>Operation) on the G train on weekends. The TWU Local 100 obviously opposes
>the move, as does several line users in Brooklyn. The residents are concerned
>about overcrowded trains since it is MTA policy to use no more than 4 cars on
>OPTO lines. NYCT has used OPTO on smaller shuttle trains such as the Times
>Square - Grand Central Shuttle and the Franklin Ave. Shuttle. (This info
>comes courtesy of Tri State Transportation Campaign's "Mobilizing the Region"
>newsletter.)
The MTA uses OPTO in the following routes (as of 3/1/98)
Times Square Shuttle
Franklin Ave Shuttle
Rockaway Park Shuttle
Dyre Shuttle
West End Shuttle
Crosstown line (G) (started 3/1)
The Frankin, Times Square, and (perhaps) the Rockaway Park OPTO
shuttles operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The Dyre and West End Shuttles operate every night between 1 A.M. and
5 A.M.
The Crosstown line operates as an OPTO on the weekend (I am guessing 1
A.M. Saturday to 5 A.M. Monday; it has only operated one weekend and I
have not have a chance to observe it in operation; there is no
operating schedule posted along the line).
Most of these routes are rather short; but excluding the G (which
started last weekend), the West End shuttle is a few miles long.
The TWU is doing the right thing by protesting OPTO every step of the
way. Yes, the TA does give an additional differential for OPTO Train
Operators, this comes at the expense of less jobs for Conductors.
Less runs eventually means less Conductors being employed.
But they (TWU) also has a valid argument with regards to an undue
burden on the T/O. Between operating the train (and all of the other
stuff that goes with it- observing signals and the ROW, etc), and
operating the doors, giving travel information (stuff that the
Conductor normally does), it is way too much for the Train Operator to
do.
First of all, I think that OPTO is dangerous at night, and can be
tragic on the weekend. Granted, the TA is being smart by using
shorter trains to condense the passengers and makes it possible for
the Train Operator to see around a curve at a station. But the safety
issues involved outweigh the monetary savings that the TA reaps.
Yes, the T/O observes the train before leaving the station. But what
happens if he does not notice someone caught, or stuck, and begins to
accelerate out of the station? Someone is going to be dragged to
their death senselessly.
I think that the biggest issue is passenger safety, which the TA seems
to evade. When the Franklin Avenue shuttle first went OPTO 24/7,
passengers were being robbed and assulted in the rear car almost every
night.
[The MTA uses two R68A (75ft) cars for this shuttle (as well as 75ft
cars on the Rockaway, and probably Crosstown line OPTO services), on
which the end car doors are locked. The doors at the end of the cars
are locked to prevent passengers from being caught in the "scissoring"
effect when the longer cars go around tight curves.]
The TA's initial response was to provide a Train Service Supervisor to
accompany the *Train Operator*. No police officer was initially
assigned to the train.
I feel bad for the T/O on this shuttle, but he is locked in a cab with
a radio to call for help if he needs it. The passengers needed
protection in those days, and did not get it. Many people responded
by taking the longer, more inconveinant B48 and B49 bus routes to get
around.
[ In all fairness to the TA, patrols by the Transit Bureau and the
71st Precinct have increased significanly and crime has dropped to an
"acceptable" level on the shuttle. I think the odds of a crime
occuring on the shuttle are as the same as other lines during the
night. ]
I think that passenger saftey needs to be considered first before
financial savings. I think that OPTO on long distance lines can be
dangerous. Weekend OPTO on the G (as well as the proposed, if not
definite, upcoming Weekend OPTO on the C) will help to show that this
is a *bad* idea. I hope that crime and accidents get reported
accurately so that we can see the problems that this causes.
+Mike
--
===========================
Michael B. Justice
Brookyln New York USA
mjustice<at>nyct<dot>net
All opinions are personal
===========================
Peter Rosa
Michael Justice wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 09:20:42 -0600, ctr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> [snip philly story]
>
> burden on the T/O. Between operating the train (and all of the other
> stuff that goes with it- observing signals and the ROW, etc), and
> operating the doors, giving travel information (stuff that the
> Conductor normally does), it is way too much for the Train Operator to
> do.
>
> First of all, I think that OPTO is dangerous at night, and can be
> tragic on the weekend. Granted, the TA is being smart by using
> shorter trains to condense the passengers and makes it possible for
> the Train Operator to see around a curve at a station. But the safety
> issues involved outweigh the monetary savings that the TA reaps.
>
> Yes, the T/O observes the train before leaving the station. But what
> happens if he does not notice someone caught, or stuck, and begins to
> accelerate out of the station? Someone is going to be dragged to
> their death senselessly.
>
> I think that the biggest issue is passenger safety, which the TA seems
> to evade. When the Franklin Avenue shuttle first went OPTO 24/7,
> passengers were being robbed and assulted in the rear car almost every
> night.
to evaluate its performance. Other than crime on the Franklin Avenue
shuttle, have there been any safety problems directly attributable to
OPTO?
West Philly Slumlord
Michael Justice (mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net) wrote:
: The TWU is doing the right thing by protesting OPTO every step of the
: way. Yes, the TA does give an additional differential for OPTO Train
: Operators, this comes at the expense of less jobs for Conductors.
: Less runs eventually means less Conductors being employed.
This is true, but transit agencies also want to run higher frequencies
off peak, and the marginal cost of doing so is reduced under OPTO. With
higher service frequency, there will be more trains running meaning more
drivers. As well, additional police and security forces are needed.
There will be fewer conductors, but more jobs in security.
: But they (TWU) also has a valid argument with regards to an undue
: burden on the T/O. Between operating the train (and all of the other
: stuff that goes with it- observing signals and the ROW, etc), and
: operating the doors, giving travel information (stuff that the
: Conductor normally does), it is way too much for the Train Operator to
: do.
This appears to me to be a less than ideal situation. Automatic control
of the doors seems to be something that should also be instituted. On
the PATCO, the driver doesn't have to drive, he just starts a pre-set
program and the system has manual override. PATCO seems to work well in
OPTO.
: First of all, I think that OPTO is dangerous at night, and can be
: tragic on the weekend. Granted, the TA is being smart by using
: shorter trains to condense the passengers and makes it possible for
: the Train Operator to see around a curve at a station. But the safety
: issues involved outweigh the monetary savings that the TA reaps.
The TO doesn't need to pay attention to the drivers. Roving security
guards should do the trick.
: Yes, the T/O observes the train before leaving the station. But what
: happens if he does not notice someone caught, or stuck, and begins to
: accelerate out of the station? Someone is going to be dragged to
: their death senselessly.
The doors should be set with a little more "give" so that people won't
get dragged away. Vancouver has total automatic control (no driver) and
all but a couple of the fatalities on this system are due to suicides.
Even suicide is difficult, since in the R/W there are pressure plates
that detect objects in between the tracks.
: I think that the biggest issue is passenger safety, which the TA seems
: to evade. When the Franklin Avenue shuttle first went OPTO 24/7,
: passengers were being robbed and assulted in the rear car almost every
: night.
OPTO shouldn't mean only one crew member on the train. Roving security
should concentrate on high risk areas and to allay the fears of riders.
: The TA's initial response was to provide a Train Service Supervisor to
: accompany the *Train Operator*. No police officer was initially
: assigned to the train.
: I feel bad for the T/O on this shuttle, but he is locked in a cab with
: a radio to call for help if he needs it. The passengers needed
: protection in those days, and did not get it. Many people responded
: by taking the longer, more inconveinant B48 and B49 bus routes to get
: around.
This is interesting . . . I wonder how NYCTA compares with other agencies
in its implementation of OPTO?
: [ In all fairness to the TA, patrols by the Transit Bureau and the
: 71st Precinct have increased significanly and crime has dropped to an
: "acceptable" level on the shuttle. I think the odds of a crime
: occuring on the shuttle are as the same as other lines during the
: night. ]
: I think that passenger saftey needs to be considered first before
: financial savings. I think that OPTO on long distance lines can be
: dangerous. Weekend OPTO on the G (as well as the proposed, if not
: definite, upcoming Weekend OPTO on the C) will help to show that this
: is a *bad* idea. I hope that crime and accidents get reported
: accurately so that we can see the problems that this causes.
True, passenger safety is of paramount importance. However, I do not
share your dim view of OPTO. I think that once the bugs get worked out,
NYCTA will realize better performance and cost savings with no increase
in danger to the passenger.
M Greene
ctr...@hotmail.com wrote:
>[Apologies in advance to the nyc.transit NG for the first couple of paragraphs
>-- this relates to an article in phl.transportation, however the point in the
>latter part of the message relates to NYC subway operations.]
>In article <6e1vjb$q...@netaxs.com>,
> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa or Jeff) wrote:
>> Your bad experiences may be colored by boarding PATCO at Collingswood.
>>
>> Collingswood is a filthy slum. Makes Camden look like paradise.
>Excuse me? What planet are you looking at?
>Have you ever been to Collingswood?
>If Collingswood is a "filthy slum" then I have a bridge in Tacony for sale....
>I have been to Collingswood several times. I have NEVER thought it was a
>slum. Now Camden, that's another story....
I'd guess that Lisa/Jeff must have had a bad experience in
Collingswood. If that's a "filthy slum", then nuking Camden would be
an improvement...
>{Getting back on topic}
>Two man operations are a drain on a transit authority resources. SEPTA is
>getting with the program by eliminating the conductor on the El with the
>introduction of the M-4 cars. (One question -- before the Kawasaki cars
>arrived in the 1980's, were Broad Street Line trains run using one or two
>people?)
They used 2-person crews, out of necessity, since the old BSS cars
were set up like the Budd single units(i.e.,cabs at opposite corners
of the car that had both operator and conductor controls).
Later
Michael T. Greene
Because of the influx of junk mail, send all e-mail responses
to the following address: mgr...@voicenet.com@removethisbeforemailing
Michael Justice
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998 21:30:54 -0500, Peter Rosa <PR...@prodigy.net>
wrote:
>Michael Justice wrote:
>>
>> I think that the biggest issue is passenger safety, which the TA seems
>> to evade. When the Franklin Avenue shuttle first went OPTO 24/7,
>> passengers were being robbed and assulted in the rear car almost every
>> night.
>
>OPTO has been around long enough in New York that it should be possible
>to evaluate its performance. Other than crime on the Franklin Avenue
>shuttle, have there been any safety problems directly attributable to
>OPTO?
Crime on the West End Line was also bad in the beginning, but not as
bad as the Franklin Ave Shuttle. Things have gotten better. The
preist who was robbed put in the Rockaways on the train was in the
rear car of the Rock Park OPTO shuttle.
According to Conductors that I know, two people have been dragged on
the West End. I have not seen G-2's but these guys are usually
reliable.
I think that the Weekend OPTO G is going to be a real test of whether
OPTO can survive in NY. This line is long enough, and will operate
during the day as well as the night.
There are also several curves in stations, which will force T/O's to
make sure that the doors are clear before leaving. There are a few
knuckleheads out there who like to open and close the doors without
looking out the windows (especially on those cold nights at stations
with the doors on the same side as the operator's console). Hopefully
daylight OPTO will bring more Train Service Supervisors (TSS) out onto
the road to bust those who are not following the rules.
AcePumpkin
It's fun once I lost shame and risk of weird looks. I find myself boarding the
oft-crowded 34 in mornings and seeing that the thin-aisled back is empty, while
the front is crowded. I pretty much smile, say "Excuse me" (or variant) and
winnow my way to the back. By the way, a backpack is best removed and held down
in order to keep from braining folks while passing through. The way I figure
it, if folks don't like my going through (no one's ever *said* anything), then
they should have moved to the back in the first place.
Aaron (who can't wait until "Transit First" plans are implemented for the 34
corridor, particularly so that we don't wait for that 46th Street light..)
(then again, that light has enabled me to catch a few by running)
Lisa or Jeff
> I'd guess that Lisa/Jeff must have had a bad experience in
> Collingswood. If that's a "filthy slum", then nuking Camden would be
> an improvement...
Many bad experiences. The town is really f***ed up.
Colin R. Leech
Michael Justice (mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net) wrote:
>
> The TWU is doing the right thing by protesting OPTO every step of the way.
> [...]
> But they (TWU) also has a valid argument with regards to an undue
> burden on the T/O. Between operating the train (and all of the other
> stuff that goes with it- observing signals and the ROW, etc), and
> operating the doors, giving travel information (stuff that the
> Conductor normally does), it is way too much for the Train Operator to do.
Horsefeathers. Several cities operate with just one operator. Montreal
does it with 9 car trains.
> I think that the biggest issue is passenger safety, which the TA seems
> to evade. When the Franklin Avenue shuttle first went OPTO 24/7,
> passengers were being robbed and assulted in the rear car almost every
> night.
You could be assaulted in any car at any time of day. Two employees in a
train don't help you much if there are 10 cars in a train.
> I think that OPTO on long distance lines can be dangerous.
The length of the line is irrelevant. I would agree with you that there is
a greater safety concern at stations with curved platform, though.
Michael Justice
On 11 Mar 1998 01:12:22 GMT, chan...@red.seas.upenn.edu (West Philly
Slumlord) wrote:
>Michael Justice (mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net) wrote:
>: But they (TWU) also has a valid argument with regards to an undue
>: burden on the T/O. Between operating the train (and all of the other
>: stuff that goes with it- observing signals and the ROW, etc), and
>: operating the doors, giving travel information (stuff that the
>: Conductor normally does), it is way too much for the Train Operator to
>: do.
>
>This appears to me to be a less than ideal situation. Automatic control
>of the doors seems to be something that should also be instituted. On
>the PATCO, the driver doesn't have to drive, he just starts a pre-set
>program and the system has manual override. PATCO seems to work well in
>OPTO.
That can take many years (as well as hundreds of millions of dollars)
to be implemented by the MTA, which does nothing for people using OPTO
trains now.
>: First of all, I think that OPTO is dangerous at night, and can be
>: tragic on the weekend. Granted, the TA is being smart by using
>: shorter trains to condense the passengers and makes it possible for
>: the Train Operator to see around a curve at a station. But the safety
>: issues involved outweigh the monetary savings that the TA reaps.
>
>The TO doesn't need to pay attention to the drivers. Roving security
>guards should do the trick.
Excuse me, but I don't understand what you are talking about. Please
explain.
>: Yes, the T/O observes the train before leaving the station. But what
>: happens if he does not notice someone caught, or stuck, and begins to
>: accelerate out of the station? Someone is going to be dragged to
>: their death senselessly.
>
>The doors should be set with a little more "give" so that people won't
>get dragged away. Vancouver has total automatic control (no driver) and
>all but a couple of the fatalities on this system are due to suicides.
>Even suicide is difficult, since in the R/W there are pressure plates
>that detect objects in between the tracks.
That is not easy to implement, either.
Vancouver's system has been (re)designed for unattended operation.
>: I think that the biggest issue is passenger safety, which the TA seems
>: to evade. When the Franklin Avenue shuttle first went OPTO 24/7,
>: passengers were being robbed and assulted in the rear car almost every
>: night.
>
>OPTO shouldn't mean only one crew member on the train. Roving security
>should concentrate on high risk areas and to allay the fears of riders.
In too many instances that is not happening.
>: The TA's initial response was to provide a Train Service Supervisor to
>: accompany the *Train Operator*. No police officer was initially
>: assigned to the train.
>
>: I feel bad for the T/O on this shuttle, but he is locked in a cab with
>: a radio to call for help if he needs it. The passengers needed
>: protection in those days, and did not get it. Many people responded
>: by taking the longer, more inconveinant B48 and B49 bus routes to get
>: around.
>
>This is interesting . . . I wonder how NYCTA compares with other agencies
>in its implementation of OPTO?
They obviously put a lot more thought into it than the TA did.
>
>: I think that passenger saftey needs to be considered first before
>: financial savings. I think that OPTO on long distance lines can be
>: dangerous. Weekend OPTO on the G (as well as the proposed, if not
>: definite, upcoming Weekend OPTO on the C) will help to show that this
>: is a *bad* idea. I hope that crime and accidents get reported
>: accurately so that we can see the problems that this causes.
>
>True, passenger safety is of paramount importance. However, I do not
>share your dim view of OPTO. I think that once the bugs get worked out,
>NYCTA will realize better performance and cost savings with no increase
>in danger to the passenger.
>
I never said that OPTO could not work. The current system, however,
needs some serious re-enginnering for it to be effective and safe.
Michael Justice
On 12 Mar 1998 07:38:29 GMT, ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R.
Leech) wrote:
>
>Michael Justice (mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net) wrote:
>>
>> The TWU is doing the right thing by protesting OPTO every step of the way.
>> [...]
>> But they (TWU) also has a valid argument with regards to an undue
>> burden on the T/O. Between operating the train (and all of the other
>> stuff that goes with it- observing signals and the ROW, etc), and
>> operating the doors, giving travel information (stuff that the
>> Conductor normally does), it is way too much for the Train Operator to do.
>
>Horsefeathers. Several cities operate with just one operator. Montreal
>does it with 9 car trains.
Does Montreal have the idiots running the system like we do in NYC?
Was Montreal's system designed for OPTO?
Is Montreal in a litigious-minded society like the United States?
Are the cars in Montreal designed for *easy* OPTO?
I think these are questions you need to think about before saying that
it can be done here because it can be done in Montreal.
>> I think that the biggest issue is passenger safety, which the TA seems
>> to evade. When the Franklin Avenue shuttle first went OPTO 24/7,
>> passengers were being robbed and assulted in the rear car almost every
>> night.
>
>You could be assaulted in any car at any time of day. Two employees in a
>train don't help you much if there are 10 cars in a train.
This is true. But theives are not that stupid. There are only two
cars on that train. People were being assulted and robbed on a
semi-daily basis. Statistics don't lie, and I think that there is a
significant correlation between high-crime in that last car, and the
time that the line went OPTO. Other people believed it too, which is
why there was an onslaught of complaints, and a resulting change.
>> I think that OPTO on long distance lines can be dangerous.
>
>The length of the line is irrelevant. I would agree with you that there is
>a greater safety concern at stations with curved platform, though.
The longer the line, the more cars that they have to run in order to
get serve people efficiently. The car load necessary for the Franklin
Ave shuttle (at anytime) is much less than the C for weekend OPTO (or
the G, to a lesser extent). The longer the train, the longer it takes
someone in a rear car to reach help. This can (quite obviously) be
fatal.
Furthermore, the longer the line, the more likely you are to encounter
stations with curves. Longer trains at these stations with OPTO being
used can easily cause someone to be dragged by a train.
West Philly Slumlord
Michael Justice (mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net) wrote:
: On 11 Mar 1998 01:12:22 GMT, chan...@red.seas.upenn.edu (West Philly
: Slumlord) wrote:
[snip]
: >The TO doesn't need to pay attention to the drivers. Roving security
: >guards should do the trick.
: Excuse me, but I don't understand what you are talking about. Please
: explain.
Sorry, I meant the TO doesn't need to pay attention to the passengers.
: >: Yes, the T/O observes the train before leaving the station. But what
: >: happens if he does not notice someone caught, or stuck, and begins to
: >: accelerate out of the station? Someone is going to be dragged to
: >: their death senselessly.
: >
: >The doors should be set with a little more "give" so that people won't
: >get dragged away. Vancouver has total automatic control (no driver) and
: >all but a couple of the fatalities on this system are due to suicides.
: >Even suicide is difficult, since in the R/W there are pressure plates
: >that detect objects in between the tracks.
: That is not easy to implement, either.
However, it can be done, and has in many sucessful cases.
: Vancouver's system has been (re)designed for unattended operation.
Vancouver's system was always driverless, I beleive.
: >: I think that the biggest issue is passenger safety, which the TA seems
: >: to evade. When the Franklin Avenue shuttle first went OPTO 24/7,
: >: passengers were being robbed and assulted in the rear car almost every
: >: night.
: >
: >OPTO shouldn't mean only one crew member on the train. Roving security
: >should concentrate on high risk areas and to allay the fears of riders.
: In too many instances that is not happening.
This is unfortunate, because I think a high level of security is
imperative to the smooth operation of OPTO or driverless systems.
: >: I think that passenger saftey needs to be considered first before
: >: financial savings. I think that OPTO on long distance lines can be
: >: dangerous. Weekend OPTO on the G (as well as the proposed, if not
: >: definite, upcoming Weekend OPTO on the C) will help to show that this
: >: is a *bad* idea. I hope that crime and accidents get reported
: >: accurately so that we can see the problems that this causes.
: >
: >True, passenger safety is of paramount importance. However, I do not
: >share your dim view of OPTO. I think that once the bugs get worked out,
: >NYCTA will realize better performance and cost savings with no increase
: >in danger to the passenger.
: >
: I never said that OPTO could not work. The current system, however,
: needs some serious re-enginnering for it to be effective and safe.
Sorry about that . . .
But I do agree with you. The situation in NYC would seem to be
unacceptable. I'm sorry I don't know much more about the performance of
OPTO in NY. Are there any resources you could point me to?
Peter Rosa
Michael Justice wrote:
>
> On 12 Mar 1998 07:38:29 GMT, ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R.
> Leech) wrote:
>
> >> to evade. When the Franklin Avenue shuttle first went OPTO 24/7,
> >> passengers were being robbed and assulted in the rear car almost every
> >> night.
> >
> >train don't help you much if there are 10 cars in a train.
>
> This is true. But theives are not that stupid. There are only two
> cars on that train. People were being assulted and robbed on a
> semi-daily basis. Statistics don't lie, and I think that there is a
> significant correlation between high-crime in that last car, and the
> time that the line went OPTO. Other people believed it too, which is
> why there was an onslaught of complaints, and a resulting change.
>
the start of OPTO illustrates not so much the inherent drawbacks of
OPTO, but rather the troubles on that line. An eight-car non-OPTO train
on a typical line has six unstaffed cars, yet there's no outcry to put a
conductor in every car. The fact that having an unstaffed car on the
FAS created such serious crime problems is a disturbing commentary on
that line. I really wonder whether the now-cancelled plans to scrap the
line entirely were necessarily a bad idea ...
For people not familiar with the Franklin Avenue Shuttle, it long has
been the unwanted stepchild of the NY subway, with maintenance standards
below other lines. As one might guess, the neighborhoods it serves are
in no danger of being mistaken for Beverly Hills :-)
Michael Justice
On 12 Mar 1998 22:42:51 GMT, chan...@red.seas.upenn.edu (West Philly
Slumlord) wrote:
>Michael Justice (mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net) wrote:
>: On 11 Mar 1998 01:12:22 GMT, chan...@red.seas.upenn.edu (West Philly
>: Slumlord) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: >The TO doesn't need to pay attention to the drivers. Roving security
>: >guards should do the trick.
>
>: Excuse me, but I don't understand what you are talking about. Please
>: explain.
>
>Sorry, I meant the TO doesn't need to pay attention to the passengers.
He doesn't need to, but in many instance he or she has to deal with
passengers anyway. Even now, many passengers knock on the door while
the train is in motion, or on the window while the train is in a
station. Granted, the passengers are only asking for travel help, the
Train Operator is not the person to approach.
OPTO is only going to make this worse.
>
>: >: Yes, the T/O observes the train before leaving the station. But what
>: >: happens if he does not notice someone caught, or stuck, and begins to
>: >: accelerate out of the station? Someone is going to be dragged to
>: >: their death senselessly.
>: >
>: >The doors should be set with a little more "give" so that people won't
>: >get dragged away. Vancouver has total automatic control (no driver) and
>: >all but a couple of the fatalities on this system are due to suicides.
>: >Even suicide is difficult, since in the R/W there are pressure plates
>: >that detect objects in between the tracks.
>
>: That is not easy to implement, either.
>
>However, it can be done, and has in many sucessful cases.
But at the cost of years of development and millions in investment.
>: Vancouver's system has been (re)designed for unattended operation.
>
>Vancouver's system was always driverless, I beleive.
Which is why Vancouver can operate unattended trains without many
incidents.
>: >: I think that the biggest issue is passenger safety, which the TA seems
>: >: to evade. When the Franklin Avenue shuttle first went OPTO 24/7,
>: >: passengers were being robbed and assulted in the rear car almost every
>: >: night.
>: >
>: >OPTO shouldn't mean only one crew member on the train. Roving security
>: >should concentrate on high risk areas and to allay the fears of riders.
>
>: In too many instances that is not happening.
>
>This is unfortunate, because I think a high level of security is
>imperative to the smooth operation of OPTO or driverless systems.
>
>: >: I think that passenger saftey needs to be considered first before
>: >: financial savings. I think that OPTO on long distance lines can be
>: >: dangerous. Weekend OPTO on the G (as well as the proposed, if not
>: >: definite, upcoming Weekend OPTO on the C) will help to show that this
>: >: is a *bad* idea. I hope that crime and accidents get reported
>: >: accurately so that we can see the problems that this causes.
>: >
>: >True, passenger safety is of paramount importance. However, I do not
>: >share your dim view of OPTO. I think that once the bugs get worked out,
>: >NYCTA will realize better performance and cost savings with no increase
>: >in danger to the passenger.
>: >
>
>: I never said that OPTO could not work. The current system, however,
>: needs some serious re-enginnering for it to be effective and safe.
>
>Sorry about that . . .
>
>But I do agree with you. The situation in NYC would seem to be
>unacceptable. I'm sorry I don't know much more about the performance of
>OPTO in NY. Are there any resources you could point me to?
>
Glad to see that we share similar points of view about OPTO in NYC.
However, I don't know of any web-based OPTO sites that you can turn
to.
Chris Wallgren
Michael Justice (mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net) wrote:
: He doesn't need to, but in many instance he or she has to deal with
: passengers anyway. Even now, many passengers knock on the door while
: the train is in motion, or on the window while the train is in a
: station. Granted, the passengers are only asking for travel help, the
: Train Operator is not the person to approach.
: OPTO is only going to make this worse.
How would OPTO make this worse?
While I'm not necessarily advocating this for NYC, millions
in investment can easily be recouped. The status quo is not
necessarily the way we must continue to operate.
: But at the cost of years of development and millions in investment.
Chris
Michael Justice
On 13 Mar 1998 19:50:24 GMT, cwal...@blue.seas.upenn.edu (Chris
Wallgren) wrote:
>Michael Justice (mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net) wrote:
>
>: He doesn't need to, but in many instance he or she has to deal with
>: passengers anyway. Even now, many passengers knock on the door while
>: the train is in motion, or on the window while the train is in a
>: station. Granted, the passengers are only asking for travel help, the
>: Train Operator is not the person to approach.
>
>: OPTO is only going to make this worse.
>
>How would OPTO make this worse?
Two ways:
1. *Most* people know not to bother the train operator. I don't
think that that it would take much for the T/O to be jilted by someone
banging on the door during a quiet night, and the T/O resultingly
letting go of the master controller in shock. That isn't good.
(I know that it is unlikely (I have seen it once in 10 years), but it
is something to consider).
2. Train Operators cannot (and should not) give directions while
operating the train. In fact the rules (namely 53d), say that the cab
door closed at all times (an exception is made for extreme heat or
cold). So the Train Operator (in OPTO) must give instructions while
the train is in the station. This can cause a lot of delays.
Chris Wallgren
Michael Justice (mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net) wrote:
: 1. *Most* people know not to bother the train operator. I don't
: think that that it would take much for the T/O to be jilted by someone
: banging on the door during a quiet night, and the T/O resultingly
: letting go of the master controller in shock. That isn't good.
: (I know that it is unlikely (I have seen it once in 10 years), but it
: is something to consider).
It seems like the system is poorly programmed if a "shocked" driver
can cause that much damage because of a knock on the window and the
surprise that might follow.
: 2. Train Operators cannot (and should not) give directions while
: operating the train. In fact the rules (namely 53d), say that the cab
: door closed at all times (an exception is made for extreme heat or
: cold). So the Train Operator (in OPTO) must give instructions while
: the train is in the station. This can cause a lot of delays.
Why MUST the driver in OPTO give instructions? Rules CAN be changed so
that the full benefits of OPTO are maximized.
It seems that one problem with modernization of systems is that
rules are not updated, and antiquated labor laws, rules and other
such problems totally negate the benefits of newer technology...
for example a FIREMAN on a diesel?!?!?
Michael Justice
On 14 Mar 1998 16:40:24 GMT, cwal...@red.seas.upenn.edu (Chris
Wallgren) wrote:
>Michael Justice (mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net) wrote:
>: 2. Train Operators cannot (and should not) give directions while
>: operating the train. In fact the rules (namely 53d), say that the cab
>: door closed at all times (an exception is made for extreme heat or
>: cold). So the Train Operator (in OPTO) must give instructions while
>: the train is in the station. This can cause a lot of delays.
>
>Why MUST the driver in OPTO give instructions? Rules CAN be changed so
>that the full benefits of OPTO are maximized.
Who else is going to give passengers directions while on the train?
Rules can be changed, but I think that this is one rule that should
not. While someone is operating any vehicle, that should be what they
are focusing on.
Buses have "Please do not talk to operator while bus is in motion"
signs for a reason.
Harvey Fishman
In <350b3632....@news2.nyct.net> mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net (Michael Justice) says
> Rules can be changed, but I think that this is one rule that should
> not. While someone is operating any vehicle, that should be what they
> are focusing on.
>
> Buses have "Please do not talk to operator while bus is in motion"
> signs for a reason.
But you do not generally have vehicular cross-traffic around a subway
train. ;-)
Harvey
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Fishman |
fis...@panix.com | A little heresy is good for the soul.
718-258-7276 |
Cap'n Bludd
fis...@panix.com (Harvey Fishman) wrote:
>In <350b3632....@news2.nyct.net> mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net (Michael Justice) says
>
>> Rules can be changed, but I think that this is one rule that should
>> not. While someone is operating any vehicle, that should be what they
>> are focusing on.
>>
>> Buses have "Please do not talk to operator while bus is in motion"
>> signs for a reason.
>
>But you do not generally have vehicular cross-traffic around a subway
>train. ;-)
>
>Harvey
>
No, but you have signals, signs, flags, lamps debris and people like
me working on the tracks.
A distracted operator is a dangerous thing, that's how 2 guys got
killed at Kings highway a few years back. The T/o took his eyes off
the road to close the end door which had swung in, didn't see them and
hit them.
Cap'n Bludd C/r C/f
cpnb...@pipeline.com
capn...@aol.com
http://www.pipeline.com/~cpnbludd
The probability of someone watching you is directly
proportional to the stupidity of your actions....
Michael Justice
On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:25:42 GMT, cpnb...@pipeline.com (Cap'n Bludd)
wrote:
>fis...@panix.com (Harvey Fishman) wrote:
>
>>In <350b3632....@news2.nyct.net> mjustice.*nospam*@nyct.net (Michael Justice) says
>>
>>> Rules can be changed, but I think that this is one rule that should
>>> not. While someone is operating any vehicle, that should be what they
>>> are focusing on.
>>>
>>> Buses have "Please do not talk to operator while bus is in motion"
>>> signs for a reason.
>>
>>But you do not generally have vehicular cross-traffic around a subway
>>train. ;-)
>
>No, but you have signals, signs, flags, lamps debris and people like
>me working on the tracks.
>
>A distracted operator is a dangerous thing, that's how 2 guys got
>killed at Kings highway a few years back. The T/o took his eyes off
>the road to close the end door which had swung in, didn't see them and
>hit them.
Incidents like that keep that rule from being changed.
patriciab...@gmail.com
> > A sign that used to be mounted so that passengers arriving on the platform
> > at a Market Street El station saw it prominently used to read,
> > "There's usually more room in the rear cars."
> > I guess this was about as effective as the "WALK-DON'T RUN -- Take time to
> > be safe" signs that still hang over Locust Street PATCO entrances, or the
> > recently-installed decals that read "As a courtesy to others, please take
> > your trash with you."
>
> In NYC, the signs read "Walk don't run, a fall is no fun". Didn't help.
>
> For years SEPTA, and PTC before it have tried to encourage riders to move
> to the rear of buses. Nothing seemed to work. I'm not sure if any
> other cities have had better luck, I've seen crowded fronts and empty
> rears on buses in NYC, Washington, and Chicago.
>
> Ironically, on some bus stops in Philadelphia, passengers line up in
> an orderly fashion rather than just crowd on. I don't know how or
> why these traditions started at these particular bus stops, but they
> do exist, and stay on their own. (One example was the 18 express, and
> there are a few routes at Bridge Pratt.) It's weird one route could
> have a nice line, but a nearby one have a free-for-all crowd.
>
>
> I submit the only way to change ingrained rider behaivor would be via
> an aggressive public relations campaign. SEPTA would have to saturate
> vehicles with instructional signage, backed up with TV and radio spots.
> On implementation day, SEPTA would need to have LOTS of extra people
> out on the system reminding people to obey. This would go on for a
> while until people got into the habit regularly. Periodic reminders
> would be necessary to maintain the flow.