05 January 2009

not the kind of transit I'm in favor of

5 comments:

Matthew said...

Makes me wonder if that is better or worse in a wreck than a more normally loaded train: On one hand you have so many potential people to be injured, but on the other hand someone in the middle has an awful lot of "padding" around them.

biscodo said...

From a systems perspective, consider how packing that many carcasses into a tin can increases the weight of it - probably doubles or triples the weight of the car. Which then means that in a derailment, the car tumbles further, or is more likely to cause damage to other things involved in a wreck. Or that the momentum of the crash means that more things get impacted, increasing the risk to the passengers. Ah, the quandry of air travel vs. road travel: fewer accidents in the sky, but consequences greater. More accidents on the road, but more likely to survive them.

The other ponderable: the transit authority has the presence of mind to add white-gloved staff "shovers" to help shove people on the train. How is it that they are completely unable to add capacity to the rail line? (i.e. add cars, increase frequency of trains, etc. etc.)

Matthew said...

I made a mental note of that last point as well... would seem that adding cars would be a relatively easy way to add capacity.

Of course, watching that one can see why there are lots of issues with people (read young women generally) getting groped while on the trains and yet few seem to be caught/punished.

Matthew said...

Not that I would intentionally bait your blog ;-)

biscodo said...

The only possible reason I can think of is that the train car manufacturing industry was terribly backlogged and they couldn't build them quickly enough. But that's a bullshit excuse.

The statistic I saw on this: the percentage of women riders on these trains that get groped at least once? 60%