Comments on: MBTA Bus Idiocy http://www.emilsit.net/blog/archives/mbta-bus-idiocy/ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:56:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Emil Sit http://www.emilsit.net/blog/archives/mbta-bus-idiocy/#comment-1278 Emil Sit Wed, 22 Nov 2006 17:50:48 +0000 http://www.emilsit.net/blog/archives/mbta-bus-idiocy/#comment-1278 <p>Thanks for the thoughtful comments!</p> <p>I can empathize with the fact that people are lazy and really ought to move to the back of the bus. That being said, I still think that if the design or layout of the bus does not account for that laziness (by making it even harder to get to the back), the bus is flawed. Why make things harder on drivers by putting in an additional obstacle for lazy people? We can't change people. But maybe you can change the buses?</p> Thanks for the thoughtful comments!

I can empathize with the fact that people are lazy and really ought to move to the back of the bus. That being said, I still think that if the design or layout of the bus does not account for that laziness (by making it even harder to get to the back), the bus is flawed. Why make things harder on drivers by putting in an additional obstacle for lazy people? We can’t change people. But maybe you can change the buses?

]]> By: Train Mon! http://www.emilsit.net/blog/archives/mbta-bus-idiocy/#comment-1086 Train Mon! Thu, 09 Nov 2006 15:50:33 +0000 http://www.emilsit.net/blog/archives/mbta-bus-idiocy/#comment-1086 <p>I agree with most of your article--the new farebox are slow and at least double the loading time. Plus, half the time you have to jam your monthly pass in there. However as far as the layout of the bus, I'd like to add that the notion of "disincentive" to go the elevated area in the back of the is a direct product of sheer laziness. And I have a concise, historic reason why people should have no problem with ascending those two steps. As someone who has driven buses in the past (now in management) and has always ridden them frequently, one of the biggest problems drivers have had for the longest time both on buses and rapid transit trains, regardless of single-level or divided-level is getting people to move INTO the vehicle. People, if they know they're not getting a seat, love to cluster right around the doorways--if people did what they were supposed to do and move all the way in and all the way back, you could get as much as TWICE the amount on. Yes, there are two factors to take into account: 1. If you're getting off shortly, you don't want to bury yourself, especially during rush hour. Fine then--step aside and let other people move on in. But too many people will block nearly the entire aisle, thus not letting anyone get by them without a nudge here and a jab there--which few will do--and wind up burying themselves in a cluster anyway right by the door; meanwhile whole sections of the bus are empty because few can get to them. 2. Nobody LOVES overcrowding in public transit. To that end I say, take a vaca to New York, board a NYC Transit bus or subway train during rush hour for a week, just one week, and then come back and we'll see if you think ANY MBTA transit is crowded. That being said, the steps in the rear of the new buses create further "disincentive" to move in and back up to the elevated area since you actually have to <em>gasp</em> not only waddle your lazy self out of the doorway, but actually ascend two steps to get to the back area. So why do I think it's lazy--here's the kicker: where do those two steps come from, you ask? The newer buses are LOW FLOOR, easy-on, easy-off for wheelchairs (and other elderly/disable patrons who have trouble ascending/descending stairs). The older buses aren't. The heigh in the back is the height we've all been used to riding older buses--THE SAME TWO STEPS you walk up to walk into an older bus. So why the height difference in the new buses--to maintain the usuable space around the wheel wells in the rear that the older buses have--usable space that should be USED, might I add. Notice in new buses in the front how, because the buses area lower, you can't sit or stand in that area.</p> I agree with most of your article–the new farebox are slow and at least double the loading time. Plus, half the time you have to jam your monthly pass in there. However as far as the layout of the bus, I’d like to add that the notion of “disincentive” to go the elevated area in the back of the is a direct product of sheer laziness. And I have a concise, historic reason why people should have no problem with ascending those two steps. As someone who has driven buses in the past (now in management) and has always ridden them frequently, one of the biggest problems drivers have had for the longest time both on buses and rapid transit trains, regardless of single-level or divided-level is getting people to move INTO the vehicle. People, if they know they’re not getting a seat, love to cluster right around the doorways–if people did what they were supposed to do and move all the way in and all the way back, you could get as much as TWICE the amount on. Yes, there are two factors to take into account: 1. If you’re getting off shortly, you don’t want to bury yourself, especially during rush hour. Fine then–step aside and let other people move on in. But too many people will block nearly the entire aisle, thus not letting anyone get by them without a nudge here and a jab there–which few will do–and wind up burying themselves in a cluster anyway right by the door; meanwhile whole sections of the bus are empty because few can get to them. 2. Nobody LOVES overcrowding in public transit. To that end I say, take a vaca to New York, board a NYC Transit bus or subway train during rush hour for a week, just one week, and then come back and we’ll see if you think ANY MBTA transit is crowded. That being said, the steps in the rear of the new buses create further “disincentive” to move in and back up to the elevated area since you actually have to gasp not only waddle your lazy self out of the doorway, but actually ascend two steps to get to the back area. So why do I think it’s lazy–here’s the kicker: where do those two steps come from, you ask? The newer buses are LOW FLOOR, easy-on, easy-off for wheelchairs (and other elderly/disable patrons who have trouble ascending/descending stairs). The older buses aren’t. The heigh in the back is the height we’ve all been used to riding older buses–THE SAME TWO STEPS you walk up to walk into an older bus. So why the height difference in the new buses–to maintain the usuable space around the wheel wells in the rear that the older buses have–usable space that should be USED, might I add. Notice in new buses in the front how, because the buses area lower, you can’t sit or stand in that area.

]]>