🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <tjuvqjmubl1l6b@corp.supernews.com>, John R Cambron wrote:
> 
> 
> Tim Kynerd wrote:
>> 
>> In article <g1t%6.45613$Md.14357941@typhoon.southeast.rr.com>, Michael Malak
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > "John R Cambron" <*cambronj@chesapeake.net*> wrote in message
>> > news:tjshpfbufkjt63@corp.supernews.com...
>> >>
>> >> http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/red-bird.htm
>> >
>> > New York's lengthwise seating makes so much more sense than
>> > WMATA's when it comes to crush capacity.  WMATA aisles are an
>> > annoying 1.5 people wide.  New York's aisles are 2.5 people
>> > wide -- which allows for people to get on/off quickly, which in
>> > turn allows for shorter dwell times.  The lengthwise seating is
>> > more flexible, allowing large people to be comfortable while
>> > children can take up less width.  And there's space for packages
>> > -- the lengthwise seats and the wide ailes provide for this.
>> 
>> I still maintain that the seating and door configurations are one important
>> reason why people cluster near the doors on the Washington Metro.  There are
>> too few doors per car (three on each side, 75-foot cars), and as you point
>> out, the aisles are narrow, hindering people from getting on and off
>> quickly.  I've ridden on many rapid rail systems, and Washington's is the
>> only one where I've ever felt that I might not be able to fight my way off
>> the train at my station.  And that includes riding the New York subway at
>> rush hour.
> 
> I don't know if you know this, but when WMATA started up the
> procurement process for the CAF cars there was talk of putting 4 
> door openings on each side of the cars. This proposal was shot
> down by the WMATA board, I don't recall who's recommendation was
> used shoot it down or what was in the recommendation, my best
> guess is it had something to do with the structure of the car
> body. I will also note that the box that the seat pairs that
> are back to back rest on contain various components of the on
> board train control system, The hinges on these seat pairs are
> on the aisle side of the box allowing easy access for surviving.
> 
> Frankly I prefer the Rohr seating configuration to the Breda, CAF
> configuration. I think the real answer to overcrowding is to
> procure an adequate supply of rolling stock and run trains at
> shortest headways possable during peek times.
> 

Hi John,

Another problem is, of course, that adding another set of doors reduces
seating capacity.

Overcrowding will always be a problem on any rapid transit system from time
to time, even if there is plenty of rolling stock and frequent service in
the peak.  It's even the case that on any given day, some trains are going
to be quite crowded, while others will have relatively few people.  As long
as that's true, the only solution to the problem of people clustering around
the doors is to provide more doors.  (Note that this is a much narrower
problem than overcrowding in general, even though crowding on the cars is a
contributing factor to this problem.)

Regards,
Tim