Need money, MTA? How about letting leashed dogs on the trains?

[lyonscj]

I knew you were responding to him, but I had brought up Star Trek earlier in the thread, so I figured I was in there somewhere as well.

 

You make a good point, but it's not really relevant to the discussion. MTA wouldn't have to build anything to allow leashed dogs on the trains, or to charge their owners an extra fare. They have the technology.

 

My commute involves the #1 and the Bx12 Limited bus that runs from the Bronx to Inwood. As you may or may not know, they are experimenting with a new system, for peak travel hours--Express Plus, they call it, but it's really a Proof of Payment system, as is commonly used in Europe. There are machines at each bus stop that you can dip your MetroCard into, and get a receipt. You pocket the receipt, and board the bus--through either door. No need to show the driver the receipt. Now and again, transit police board the bus, and ask to see receipts--if you don't have one, you're fined 150 smackers.

 

There was a lot of grousing from the passengers--myself included--when they instituted this system a few months back. It's far from perfect--the machines often break down (in which case you just board the bus and tell the driver about it), it can be frustrating waiting in line to get a receipt while the bus pulls away.

 

But overall, it's led to shorter rides--much shorter boarding times, for one thing, and the Express Plus buses are equipped with transponders that can delay a red light. Some people obviously just board the bus without a receipt and hope they don't get caught, but I've seen enough receipt sweeps to know most of them do, in fact, pay their fares. Every time somebody gets ticketed, the whole bus sees it--it's a very effective deterrent, even though you can go weeks without your bus being boarded.

 

Now I'm not suggesting this system replace turnstiles in the subways, but it certainly could work for people with dogs. I get a receipt every time I get a new 30 day MetroCard. I could just as easily pay to get a receipt to show I've paid for my dog, using the same exact machine. The MTA could have people going into the trains to check for people with leashed dogs--and hand out 150 dollar fines to those who didn't have receipts. Not hard to spot the guy with the 60lb Shepherd Mix.

 

It was a significant capital investment for the MTA to install all those ticket machines along the Bx12 line, train people to maintain them, other people to patrol them, repaint buses, put in transponders, etc.

 

It would be a far smaller capital investment to institute a 'MuttroCard' system (which wouldn't necessarily involve an actual card for your dog). Not one new machine would have to be installed, and they could use the transit cops they've already got patrolling the trains--only maybe they could have more, with the lure of big fines for fare-beaters (who would be much easier to catch than turnstile jumpers).

 

Best of all, instead of just collecting the same fares in a different way, they'd be attracting a very large number of new paying customers. It would pay for itself within months, if not weeks.

 

Still waiting for somebody to give me a real reason why this wouldn't work.

 

[lyonscj]

Catching up--

 

Have you copyrighetd MuttroCard yet?

 

No, and I don't intend to. This isn't about making money. It's about making a difference.

 

Now, Subway Guy--

 

Dogs take up space for people on an already overcrowded system,

 

Bad argument--the system is going to get more and more overcrowded, as they cut service. The more people bring their dogs, the more money MTA gets, the more trains they can run. If very few people take advantage of the opportunity (which I don't believe would happen), then very little space would be taken up. It would be an offpeak thing, and c'mon--I can bring a bicycle, huge suitcases, a new TV set, but not a dog?

 

and seeing the way some pet lovers treat their animals, talking to them as children, it won't belong before people are fighting for seats for their pets as well at the expense of their fellow passengers.

 

Nonsense. Dogs would not be allowed on the seats, and larger dogs wouldn't even be that interested in being on them--too uncomfortable and slippery. If this is such a problem, how come all the other subway and rail lines that allow dogs never seem to run into it?

 

 

Dogs can also bite, but more importantly go to the bathroom,

 

Really? I had NO idea.

 

Again, you're just making up problems that don't exist on the rail lines that do allow dogs. And anyway, little dogs go to the bathroom too, and they're already allowed--in bags, and quite often, in laps.

 

and if a train gets delayed, well now you have a dog "going" on someone's leg if it's crowded or at the very least, leaving a filthy stink that some poor cleaner is going to have to take care of at the end of the line (and they say they want fewer cleaners in the system, btw).

 

This is sheer nonsense. A housebroken dog would not do that. They are extremely particular about where they pee (trust me--I've sometimes had to walk blocks before Max finds a spot he likes), and they know a train is indoors, not outdoors.

 

And small dogs are a risk to get stepped on by other passengers

 

Dude--how many times do I have to point out that SMALL DOGS ARE ALREADY ON THE TRAINS!!!!!!

 

which also creates an issue, particularly if it causes passengers to fight.

 

What subway do YOU ride? On the one I ride, people get into fights because one of them accidentally bumped into another one. People with dogs are a lot more careful--and sociable.

 

 

As a dog is physically incapable of swiping it's own Metrocard, you now create delays at the turnstile where a dog has to have its fare paid by the owner,

 

This is getting ridiculous--again, the fare is paid at the MACHINE, and the dog owner gets a receipt. Geez, did you really feel the need to point out that dogs wouldn't know how to swipe a MetroCard?

 

 

and if you're thinking of some kind of RFID mechanism where the dog could walk through a doggy gate well then a) it's not on the leash walking through the gate and B) the gate would take up space used for human entry/exit.

 

Dogs, including big dogs, can negotiate regular turnstiles very easily. I know this for a fact. But don't ask me how I know. :cool:

 

Additionally there is added exposure to lawsuits if a dog gets caught in closing subway doors, goes onto the track and is electrocuted, or goes onto the track and is hit by a train..

 

No there isn't. C'mon, are you going to back ANY of this up? Why wouldn't this be a huge problem on the Boston T, where leashed dogs ride the trains every single day? People can already bring their Yorkies on the subway in bags--suppose the bag got caught in the door, or dropped on the tracks? Could the owner sue? Oh NO! What shall we ever DO?

 

.and this will also cause system delays. You may think this can be covered by requiring the dogs to be on a leash, but remember you are dealing with the public and the public is stupid -

 

I'm trying so hard not to laugh out loud right now--my coworkers would be startled.....

 

they will let go of the leash momentarily to get their iPod, or they will place the leash around something "secure" only to find out it's not that secure.

 

You know, I spend a lot of time at dog runs, and parks, and places where people gather with their dogs, and I just don't see a lot of iPods. I'm sure a lot of dog people have them, but when you have a dog with you, you tend to be very alert and aware of what's going on around you. A person with a dog would actually be much less accident prone than your average subway rider.

 

So the answer from me, is a resounding NO

 

Well, I guess that's final then.

 

Oh wait, you have no authority whatsoever.

 

So again--any REAL arguments?

 

[metsfan]

 

PRICELESS!!!!!!!!!!!

 

:eek::cool::p

 

- A

[RokuSix]

I don't think our arguments aren't real...you just are very passionate about the subject and manage to come up with a witty retort every single time.

 

Have you written a letter to any MTA official regarding this? I mean, if we're so stubborn and weak at arguing, why don't you take it up with the big guys? I'd really like to see how they would react. Who knows? Maybe they'd buy it.

 

Or better yet, bring your dog on the subway. Your leashed dog. Find an empty station without anyone looking and go for it. Then ride the train to its most crowded point...for example, board the at Middletown Road and stay on until Brooklyn Bridge. See what happens, as a test, of sorts. Then come back to us and let us know how it went!

 

Oh, and I know the difference between a cat and a dog, thank you.

[lyonscj]

I don't think our arguments aren't real...you just are very passionate about the subject and manage to come up with a witty retort every single time.

 

I seriously would like to see some strong rational arguments against my position, and all joshing aside, I just don't think you've come up with any that hold water--I agree many of these points would be raised by opponents of the idea, but I wouldn't seem so damn witty if they weren't so damn easy to shoot down.

 

Have you written a letter to any MTA official regarding this? I mean, if we're so stubborn and weak at arguing, why don't you take it up with the big guys? I'd really like to see how they would react. Who knows? Maybe they'd buy it.

 

I fully intend to try and take the matter to persons in authority, but you'll note I just published that blog article last week. It was the recently announced budget crisis that spurred me to try and work out an actual system for letting leashed dogs on the train. It's something many NYC dog owners have yearned for, for many years, believe me. I doubt very much I'd be the first one to mention it to an MTA official, and I know for a fact it's been raised in the city council.

 

Or better yet, bring your dog on the subway. Your leashed dog. Find an empty station without anyone looking and go for it. Then ride the train to its most crowded point...for example, board the at Middletown Road and stay on until Brooklyn Bridge. See what happens, as a test, of sorts. Then come back to us and let us know how it went!

 

But that would be illegal. :eek:

 

All I'll say is that I know from personal experience that it works. And you can't prove I didn't take my dog to Boston.

 

Oh, and I know the difference between a cat and a dog, thank you.

 

In terms of the present rules relating to animals on the subway, there IS no difference--both animals are treated as if they are exactly the same. And they aren't. Dogs like to be taken to new places, and can adapt easily to changing circumstances. Cats? Eh, not so much.

 

[SubwayGuy]

Catching up--

 

 

 

No, and I don't intend to. This isn't about making money. It's about making a difference.

 

Now, Subway Guy--

 

 

 

Bad argument--the system is going to get more and more overcrowded, as they cut service. The more people bring their dogs, the more money MTA gets, the more trains they can run. If very few people take advantage of the opportunity (which I don't believe would happen), then very little space would be taken up. It would be an offpeak thing, and c'mon--I can bring a bicycle, huge suitcases, a new TV set, but not a dog?

 

 

 

Nonsense. Dogs would not be allowed on the seats, and larger dogs wouldn't even be that interested in being on them--too uncomfortable and slippery. If this is such a problem, how come all the other subway and rail lines that allow dogs never seem to run into it?

 

 

 

Really? I had NO idea.

 

Again, you're just making up problems that don't exist on the rail lines that do allow dogs. And anyway, little dogs go to the bathroom too, and they're already allowed--in bags, and quite often, in laps.

 

 

 

This is sheer nonsense. A housebroken dog would not do that. They are extremely particular about where they pee (trust me--I've sometimes had to walk blocks before Max finds a spot he likes), and they know a train is indoors, not outdoors.

 

 

 

Dude--how many times do I have to point out that SMALL DOGS ARE ALREADY ON THE TRAINS!!!!!!

 

 

 

What subway do YOU ride? On the one I ride, people get into fights because one of them accidentally bumped into another one. People with dogs are a lot more careful--and sociable.

 

 

 

This is getting ridiculous--again, the fare is paid at the MACHINE, and the dog owner gets a receipt. Geez, did you really feel the need to point out that dogs wouldn't know how to swipe a MetroCard?

 

 

 

Dogs, including big dogs, can negotiate regular turnstiles very easily. I know this for a fact. But don't ask me how I know. :cool:

 

 

 

No there isn't. C'mon, are you going to back ANY of this up? Why wouldn't this be a huge problem on the Boston T, where leashed dogs ride the trains every single day? People can already bring their Yorkies on the subway in bags--suppose the bag got caught in the door, or dropped on the tracks? Could the owner sue? Oh NO! What shall we ever DO?

 

 

 

I'm trying so hard not to laugh out loud right now--my coworkers would be startled.....

 

 

 

You know, I spend a lot of time at dog runs, and parks, and places where people gather with their dogs, and I just don't see a lot of iPods. I'm sure a lot of dog people have them, but when you have a dog with you, you tend to be very alert and aware of what's going on around you. A person with a dog would actually be much less accident prone than your average subway rider.

 

 

 

Well, I guess that's final then.

 

Oh wait, you have no authority whatsoever.

 

So again--any REAL arguments?

 

 

OK...it's time to step back for a minute...you need to chill

 

You are behaving like what is known as a KNOW IT ALL. You are being given real arguments and instead of taking these points seriously your only argument is "they do it somewhere else and I guess it's OK there so it will work in New York" Well New York is not Europe, New York is not anywhere else in the world.

 

And something that EVERYONE needs to realize regarding money is that just because you say that something will make money doesn't mean it will, nor does it mean that the incoming money will be more than what is going out to get the program set up. If it costs $20 to set up a program that will bring in $15 it is not worth it. And unless you know EXACTLY what it costs and can make a reasonble and legitimate estimate of what it will bring in, you can't call "it will bring in money" a legitimate argument because the fact remains that you don't know.

 

Just because seeing eye dogs and small dogs carried in purses or in cages are on board does not mean it will work with larger dogs or more of them. Again you are generalizing. It is called the fallacy of composition - "Just because example #1 works, everything works".

 

"People with dogs are a lot more careful and sociable" - "A person with a dog would actually be much less accident prone than your average subway rider." - again, you are using broad generalizations. Basically your whole argument is based on these types of statements, and just because you come off as aggresive doesn't give it any more credibility.

 

However It's obvious reading this thread that you are hell bent on posting this over and over and over and over and over until someone here agrees with you so this will probably go in one ear and out the other. So Pablo or Harry or whoever can close this thread if they need to because as I see it it's going nowhere, you obviously want an internet battle with someone and I really couldn't care less about it, it's not like I need to care if I look tough or "right" on a forum, I make my posts and they are what they are, if you disagree fine, but I think it says something that everyone here thinks the idea is completely ridiculous.

[KeystoneRegional]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[lyonscj]

OK...it's time to step back for a minute...you need to chill

 

Why is it that people who start posts in this manner inevitably need to take a pill themselves?

 

You are behaving like what is known as a KNOW IT ALL. You are being given real arguments and instead of taking these points seriously your only argument is "they do it somewhere else and I guess it's OK there so it will work in New York" Well New York is not Europe, New York is not anywhere else in the world.

 

Well Boston and Seattle are not Europe either. Neither is Toronto, though at least it's another country. Sort of. And there's Australia. That's definitely not Europe. As to "New York is not anywhere else in the world"--well, what are you saying? This is certainly a town with a huge number of dog lovers, dog runs, dog shows, and our city parks now formally allow dogs to run offleash and unfenced in some of our finest parks, at certain hours of the day.

 

And when that was proposed, people made the same protests you're making now. And it's been quite some time since they formalized this Offleash Hours policy (after many years of informally allowing it), and it's been declared a great success. But not everybody is happy about it, of course. Your argument is that if every single person in the city is not happy with a policy, that policy is a failure? I applaud your tough unbending standards. But suggest you're in the wrong town. And possibly the wrong planet.

 

The MTA is constantly studying the transit systems of other countries, looking for ideas to use here. They've done that with the Proof of Payment system now being used on the Bx12. So it's hardly an argument to say "New York is not Europe". In some ways, our goal is to make it more like Europe, because Europe has some transit systems that are superior to ours. And most of them allow leashed dogs.

 

And something that EVERYONE needs to realize regarding money is that just because you say that something will make money doesn't mean it will, nor does it mean that the incoming money will be more than what is going out to get the program set up. If it costs $20 to set up a program that will bring in $15 it is not worth it. And unless you know EXACTLY what it costs and can make a reasonble and legitimate estimate of what it will bring in, you can't call "it will bring in money" a legitimate argument because the fact remains that you don't know.

 

Of course I don't know, but going by your logic, how does anything the MTA does become profitable? Oh right, hardly anything the MTA does is profitable. Good point. Your first.

 

Just because seeing eye dogs and small dogs carried in purses or in cages are on board does not mean it will work with larger dogs or more of them.

 

1)It has worked in many other cities.

 

2)How big do you think seeing eye dogs are? Most of them are Labrador Retrievers these days.

 

 

Again you are generalizing. It is called the fallacy of composition - "Just because example #1 works, everything works".

 

And as I've already mentioned, your approach is known as 'invincible skepticism.' You don't have to prove anything, you don't have to produce one iota of evidence, you just have to prove that I can't prove anything beyond all doubt, when in fact nobody can prove that about any given proposal on any given subject.

 

Only in fact I've proved a lot, in terms of past precedents--you've produced zero examples of problems arising from leashed dogs on trains, and I've produced many examples of leashed dogs being allowed on trains (and buses, and streetcars, and ferries) with no problems.

 

"People with dogs are a lot more careful and sociable" - "A person with a dog would actually be much less accident prone than your average subway rider." - again, you are using broad generalizations.

 

And "The dogs would all pee and bite and get scared and fall on the tracks and create mass chaos" is not? Mine is based on actual experience with dogs and their people. Yours is based on--um--????

 

 

Basically your whole argument is based on these types of statements, and just because you come off as aggresive doesn't give it any more credibility.

 

Hmm. If you think humor qualifies as aggression, I can see how you'd have problems with dogs on the trains. B)

 

However It's obvious reading this thread that you are hell bent on posting this over and over and over and over and over until someone here agrees with you so this will probably go in one ear and out the other.

 

I was just looking for a chance to make my points, and you've provided me with that, by making such shabby repetitive points in return. Ironically, if you wanted me to be ignored, the best way to have accomplished that would have been to not respond at all. But that was obviously not an option you could seriously consider. Bless your heart.

 

So Pablo or Harry or whoever can close this thread if they need to because as I see it it's going nowhere, you obviously want an internet battle with someone and I really couldn't care less about it, it's not like I need to care if I look tough or "right" on a forum, I make my posts and they are what they are, if you disagree fine, but I think it says something that everyone here thinks the idea is completely ridiculous.

 

I think it definitely says something, but maybe not quite what you think.

 

Funny thing is, I had a very non-acrimonious conversation on THIS transit forum thread I started--

 

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=65&t=57195

 

As I keep pointing out, this acrimonious divisive issue becomes a total NON-issue once the dogs are riding the trains. For some strange reason.

 

And again, for anyone who wants to debate what I'm actually proposing, why not take the time to find out what I'm actually proposing? Make sense? Of course not. Silly me.

 

http://washingtontykes.blogspot.com/2008/11/muttrocard-idea-whose-time-has-come.html

 

__________________

[lyonscj]

Well, since you are all complaining about my lack of reading comp... Well, I don't like how your mind is operating... Allowing doggies on the train doesn't need like oh, a 'special train, just for dogs'... They can be brought on and off, even if they are in carriges... LOLz, human are animals too, !

 

Shhh! Don't you know nobody here agrees with my ideas?

 

[KeystoneRegional]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[KeystoneRegional]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[RokuSix]

And "The dogs would all pee and bite and get scared and fall on the tracks and create mass chaos" is not? Mine is based on actual experience with dogs and their people. Yours is based on--um--????

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, a disagreement with that can also be based on actual experience with dogs and their people. I knew a man who was bitten pretty badly by a dog...teeth gashes all over his arm. The owner showed little to no remorse.

 

And simply put...unfortunately, not everyone is as passionate about dogs as you are. There's a lot of people who will vehemently oppose this...and not even like we are. They'll really flip out.

 

And here's some statistics as to why the New York City Subway won't handle dogs as well as Boston:

 

Daily Ridership for the Massachusetts Transit Authority: 1.1 million (weekday, all modes)

Daily Ridership for the New York City Subway: 6,432,700 (avg. weekday, 2007)

Daily Ridership for Toronto: In 2007, the TTC carried 1.5 million passengers per day.

 

Do you see the differences? We have about five million more people to carry in New York City. The smaller transit systems could handle dogs much better.

 

(By the way, I'm not trying to be rude or "flame-y". I'm just stubborn.)

[lyonscj]

Actually, a disagreement with that can also be based on actual experience with dogs and their people. I knew a man who was bitten pretty badly by a dog...teeth gashes all over his arm. The owner showed little to no remorse.

 

And that's awful, but again, there would be penalties for such behavior, just as there are with the vastly more numerous incidents of humans being violent to other humans, on the trains and elsewhere.

 

I will assume that if this incident had happened on a train, you'd have said so. Without any further specifics (onleash? offleash? location? circumstances?), I can't really say I find your anecdote terribly relevant. My argument is not that all dogs are perfect little angels. I will say that most dog bites occur at or near where the biting dog lives, which ramps up his or her territoriality. A dog on a train is not on his home turf, and highly unlikely to attack anyone. Dogs in Boston, Seattle, Europe, et al, also come equipped with teeth, I believe.

 

And simply put...unfortunately, not everyone is as passionate about dogs as you are. There's a lot of people who will vehemently oppose this...and not even like we are. They'll really flip out.

 

People flipping out is not an argument either. It's a fact, sure. But people flipped out over the Offleash Hours policy in our parks, and it went through anyway, and in fact the number of dog bites in the city has gone DOWN. The Parks Department has declared it a hugely successful policy. Believe you me, some people FLIPPED OUT. But a lot more people were supportive. We can't make every public policy decision on the basis of "People might flip out".

 

I think we should have given congestion pricing a try--people with cars flipped out. It often works, I grant you that. But it's not a substitute for thought.

 

And here's some statistics as to why the New York City Subway won't handle dogs as well as Boston:

 

Wow. Facts! About TIME.

 

Daily Ridership for the Massachusetts Transit Authority: 1.1 million (weekday, all modes)

Daily Ridership for the New York City Subway: 6,432,700 (avg. weekday, 2007)

Daily Ridership for Toronto: In 2007, the TTC carried 1.5 million passengers per day.

 

Do you see the differences? We have about five million more people to carry in New York City. The smaller transit systems could handle dogs much better.

 

And you're just going to ignore the Greater London Area, I see.

 

Yes, there are more of us, more dogs, and MORE TRAINS to accommodate them. The smaller systems can accommodate FEWER people and FEWER dogs, but having been planned for the populations of their respective cities, they had no problems when the rules were changed so as to allow leashed dogs, because there were fewer dogs in these less populous cities. They were quite adequate to the additional traffic that resulted, because in fact dogs, even big ones, don't take up much space. If they did, there wouldn't be so many of them living in small city apartments.

 

Again--if a lot of people are bringing their dogs, that's a lot more money for the MTA, which means more trains. If canine ridership is low, then it's not going to significantly impact the system, either positively or negatively.

 

Better, but still not convincing. And of course I don't want to be convinced, but I swear, I really DO want to hear some good arguments against my position. I would acknowledge them if I saw them.