R62A 1991 Posted December 8, 2009 Share #51 Posted December 8, 2009 This is a very interesting prospect. As evidenced in this thread, you're definitely going to get the different sides of this test. As a former daily rider of the along the Eastern Pkwy EXP, I can say that there would be SO much complaining if this were in testing on an R142/A, and this showed up at Crown Hts-Utica uptown where people stand on the platform and let 1-2 trains GO to get a seat on the next train (believe it or not). They may be pissed, but then, I think of when this train gets to Franklin and people transfer from the who didn't want to wait for the , and I think, this extra space may be needed (it gets VERY crushloaded, as many people have evidenced, even this early in B'klyn). I'm going to remain neutral on this until I hear how the test goes. But I'm pretty sure the reactions may be similar to the ones in this thread. Personally, and this is only for me, even though I get on at a stop where it's impossible NOT to get a seat, I find myself getting up for someone who needs it more than me eventually, so I kind of wouldn't mind it. However, I'm reserving judgment until it's tested (and maybe until I ride it myself if I get that chance). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted December 8, 2009 Share #52 Posted December 8, 2009 Ehhh the subway is public transit man... Stage coaches were private rides! Same with taxis and crap, but you'd pay more for the comfort and convienience! All of the vehichles I mentioned were, at some point in history or another, used for public transit purposes. I also mentioned rickshaws. Are you trying to say that rickshaws are 'comfort and convenience'? I saw a rickshaw when I was in China. Definitely not luxury, but even that had a seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share #53 Posted December 8, 2009 If you notice, almost every rapid transit vehicle since the beginning of rapid transit has had seats: Horse-drawn carts, stagecoaches, trolleys, omnibuses, light rail vehicles, buses, trains, subways, ferries, pedicabs, rickshaws, taxis, etc. I don't think that, for example's sake, horse-drawn carriages in the 18th century had signs above the seats saying "For pregnant and disabled persons only", or signs saying "You're privileged to have a seat. Consider yourself lucky". One has to look around. The 'overcrowded train during rush hour' perspective is not a very broad perspective. Even if one brings it up a level, to the 'NYC buses and trains during rush hour' perspective, the perspective remains relatively narrow. And if the train is not a place to sit, then why are there seats on the subway trains? Don't tell me that ALL of them are for the pregnant and disabled. If seats really aren't needed on a train, than no train would ever have had them in the first place. They did not have those signs because people back then were considerate and would take it upon them self to offer up a seat to and elderly person or a pregnant woman. Looks like this concept has completely disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted December 8, 2009 Share #54 Posted December 8, 2009 Well a rickshaw isn't comfortable but it's a private ride nonetheless! No need to worry about strangers' asses in your face while you sit! LOL I will give up my seat if I must, I could care less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted December 8, 2009 Share #55 Posted December 8, 2009 They did not have those signs because people back then were considerate and would take it upon them self to offer up a seat to and elderly person or a pregnant woman. Looks like this concept has completely disappeared. The concept hasn't disappeared at all. I will only sit in a seat if there is no-one in the vicinity that could use it more than me. Whenever a pregnant woman or elderly person boards the train, and I happen to be sitting, then I will stand up, so that they can sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charles Posted December 8, 2009 Share #56 Posted December 8, 2009 If you notice, almost every rapid transit vehicle since the beginning of rapid transit has had seats: Horse-drawn carts, stagecoaches, trolleys, omnibuses, light rail vehicles, buses, trains, subways, ferries, pedicabs, rickshaws, taxis, etc. I don't think that, for example's sake, horse-drawn carriages in the 18th century had signs above the seats saying "For pregnant and disabled persons only", or signs saying "You're privileged to have a seat. Consider yourself lucky". One has to look around. The 'overcrowded train during rush hour' perspective is not a very broad perspective. Even if one brings it up a level, to the 'NYC buses and trains during rush hour' perspective, the perspective remains relatively narrow. And if the train is not a place to sit, then why are there seats on the subway trains? Don't tell me that ALL of them are for the pregnant and disabled. If seats really aren't needed on a train, than no train would ever have had them in the first place. You can't compare rickshaws to subways. How many people does a rickshaw carry? Or a stagecoach? Or a taxi? The subway is mass and public transportation for a reason. A "public" rickshaw? My ass. See, your post is the perfect example of what we've become these days: lazy and ignorant. Besides, we've evolved so we can stand. The seats are only added for comfort for the riders. Seats themselves can be the cause of much trouble: remember the recent train stabbing? Of course, riders would like their comfort, but when it boils down, again, trains are for COMMUTING, not SITTING. Go sit in a park during lunch or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KTrainExp Posted December 8, 2009 Share #57 Posted December 8, 2009 This idea is bound to fail massively. When I'm on a train I want a place to sit. You're not always going to find a train car that has somebody that is either pregnant or have a disability. Sure, there's the option of not riding the train, but if you need to get to somewhere asap, you would want to do it in comfort. Saying I would rather stand when there are seats around goes against everything the normal person would believe in. This problem would fail because when the rush hour hoard comes and sees a train with no seats, chances are they will switch cars. The R160s have unlocked storm doors which make it even easier to switch to another car. People will move to the other cars with seats hoping they will get one and this will just shift the population dump to the cars with seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted December 8, 2009 Share #58 Posted December 8, 2009 We still have to get used to being off our asses more... Might as well make the entire train no-seats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charles Posted December 8, 2009 Share #59 Posted December 8, 2009 We still have to get used to being off our asses more... Might as well make the entire train no-seats! haha, that's taking it a bit too far though...but I certainly agree with the 1st part! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted December 8, 2009 Share #60 Posted December 8, 2009 You can't compare rickshaws to subways. How many people does a rickshaw carry? Or a stagecoach? Or a taxi? The subway is mass and public transportation for a reason. A "public" rickshaw? My ass. See, your post is the perfect example of what we've become these days: lazy and ignorant. Besides, we've evolved so we can stand. The seats are only added for comfort for the riders. Seats themselves can be the cause of much trouble: remember the recent train stabbing? Of course, riders would like their comfort, but when it boils down, again, trains are for COMMUTING, not SITTING. Go sit in a park during lunch or something. So in other words, you're calling me lazy and ignorant, correct? You should think before you speak. For your information, I am a very intelligent and very hardworking individual. There are times when I am exhausted due to a long day, and general fatigue. The seats ARE for comfort, and so that is why they are placed on the trains in the first place. This shows that commuter comfort is taken into consideration within the realm of public transportation. By the way, If I was lazy and ignorant, then I would not have the intellectual capacity to provide extensive evidence to support my point. I would simply say something along the lines of "Oh, well I am right and you are wrong, because my opinion is better than yours!", and I would not bother to give sophisticated reasons as to why. We may have a different opinion/train of thought on this issue, but that is no reason or justification whatsoever to say that I am lazy and ignorant(or anyone else, for that matter). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charles Posted December 8, 2009 Share #61 Posted December 8, 2009 So in other words, you're calling me lazy and ignorant, correct? You should think before you speak. For your information, I am a very intelligent and very hardworking individual. There are times when I am exhausted due to a long day, and general fatigue. The seats ARE for comfort, and so that is why they are placed on the trains in the first place. This shows that commuter comfort is taken into consideration within the realm of public transportation. By the way, If I was lazy and ignorant, then I would not have the intellectual capacity to provide extensive evidence to support my point. I would simply say something along the lines of "Oh, well I am right and you are wrong, because my opinion is better than yours!", and I would not bother to give sophisticated reasons as to why. We may have a different opinion/train of thought on this issue, but that is no reason or justification whatsoever to say that I am lazy and ignorant(or anyone else, for that matter). I was not speaking directly to you. I was speaking about the human race as a whole. Where did I ever direct my post on you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted December 8, 2009 Share #62 Posted December 8, 2009 I was not speaking directly to you. I was speaking about the human race as a whole. Where did I ever direct my post on you? In that case, I must have misunderstood you. Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattTrain Posted December 8, 2009 Share #63 Posted December 8, 2009 A train car is just a train car, it takes you from one place to the next place and vice versa. No seats, just hold on to the railing. I don't mind standing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R10 2952 Posted December 8, 2009 Share #64 Posted December 8, 2009 A train car is just a train car, it takes you from one place to the next place and vice versa. No seats, just hold on to the railing. I don't mind standing at all. I agree, I mean I won't complain terribly about having to stand, but isn't making all the seats in the train car unavailable a bit extreme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7LineFan Posted December 8, 2009 Share #65 Posted December 8, 2009 The concept hasn't disappeared at all. I will only sit in a seat if there is no-one in the vicinity that could use it more than me. Whenever a pregnant woman or elderly person boards the train, and I happen to be sitting, then I will stand up, so that they can sit. But that's just you. Kudos to you for being courteous, but I rarely see this happening nowadays. I mean, I do the exact same thing you do, and I'm sure there are more courteous people out there, but there has to be a reason the put up signs saying that it is required by law to do this. As for the whole no-seats thing... 1. I'm standing most of the time anyways. I don't really care. 2. Standing keeps me awake. I was sitting in a corner seat on the going back to Main St at 3:30 this afternoon and I was half asleep. I DON'T want that happening too often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fishmech Posted December 8, 2009 Share #66 Posted December 8, 2009 Unless you're disabled or pregnant, a seat is a privelege. Only if you're disabled or pregnant, a seat is a right. You're on the train to get from place to place, train's not a place to sit and/or sleep away. If you have to stand, deal with it. I'm fine with this concept. Speaking of which, isn't (NYCT) required to have those end of the car Priority Seats available for disabled or pregnant people? I would expect it's just the long benches in the middle that will fold up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INDman Posted December 8, 2009 Author Share #67 Posted December 8, 2009 Speaking of which, isn't (NYCT) required to have those end of the car Priority Seats available for disabled or pregnant people? I would expect it's just the long benches in the middle that will fold up. No, its a 5 car set. The 3 middle cars have seats that ALL fold up and lock. People who need to sit (elderly, disabled and pregnant women) must go to one of the 2 end cars for a seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoSpectacular Posted December 8, 2009 Share #68 Posted December 8, 2009 Better to be awake than sleeping on the train. Countless times have I seen people taking up entire rows of seats just to nap. Inconsiderate bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted December 8, 2009 Share #69 Posted December 8, 2009 Heh, the R160 "Train With No Seats"...with the 160s that run on the you wouldn't want to sit on those seats! Hem, ironically combating the homeless invasion, I like it! B) I know they'll end up sleeping on the floor, but at least they won't have a bench to rest on. Well all those who complained in Queens wanted new cars! You reap what you sow... Lol, so true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted December 8, 2009 Share #70 Posted December 8, 2009 Better to be awake than sleeping on the train. Countless times have I seen people taking up entire rows of seats just to nap. Inconsiderate bastards. Those people are most likely homeless or drunks [maybe both]. If I nap, I sit next to the ends of the seats and lean on the 'partitions'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grand Concourse Posted December 8, 2009 Share #71 Posted December 8, 2009 If that was running on Rockaway Branches from 207th St, I will not like it because I am weak against "standing for long period."If it was on short train, I support it. Only 3 cars out of the 5 will be standing only. Plus you can always wait for the next train... R160s aren't likely going to the A anytime soon anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Julio Posted December 8, 2009 Share #72 Posted December 8, 2009 Only 3 cars out of the 5 will be standing only. Plus you can always wait for the next train...R160s aren't likely going to the A anytime soon anyway. and it's for rush hour only and you really shouldn't be riding during rush hour if all you're doing is fanning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princelex Posted December 8, 2009 Share #73 Posted December 8, 2009 Look, I love to sit down when I'm on the train. I love seats so much, I'd rather sit than stand at a RFW. Comfort means a lot to me when I ride the bus or the train BUT I also recognize where I am and if I don't get that, then oh well. I choose to ride the subway, so if I am uncomfortable, then it is what it is and I accept it cause I chose to ride the train. If the train has no seats, and I have somewhere I have to go, you bet your ass I'm getting on that train and standing pretty on it too! Like someone said earlier, seats are a privilege not a right. Besides, the fact that seems to be lost on folks here is that this is an EXPERIMENT. If it doesn't work, then this will just be a part of NYC Transit history that you might be able to say that you were a part of. If it does work, then wear some comfortable shoes, which you should be doing now anyway. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theaveragejoe Posted December 9, 2009 Share #74 Posted December 9, 2009 Canada. - A and where in Canada do they have this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rr4567 Posted December 9, 2009 Share #75 Posted December 9, 2009 and where in Canada do they have this? He meant the Canada in the MTA Executives' heads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.