If you have ever taken any sort of train you have seen that foreboding red device, the emergency brake. When do we use it? The New York Times’ City Room blog recently featured a video answering just that question. The video–“Emergency Brake”–is by Casey Neistat, who risked arrest and prop limbs in the making of his production.
The basic moral of the story is that the emergency brake should never really be used while a train is in motion. Do not use in the case of a fire, you’ll burn. Do not use in the case of a medical emergency, the person will be caught in greater peril. Do not use in case of a crime, you’re trapped with a criminal (probably armed and now angry). The emergency brake should be saved for those times when the train is in the station and somebody is in danger, either caught in the door or fallen onto the tracks.
As Neistat clearly illustrates this a is a problem of signage and communication. What the agencies think of as clear communication just has the average commuter confused. Money quote from the Gothamist:
According to the Times, straphangers should pull the brake if “someone gets caught between the train’s closing doors, or between subway cars, and is about to be dragged to an unenviable fate.” In other circumstances, pulling the cord could make it harder for help to arrive. That’s what happened on a D train last November when a straphanger fatally stabbed another commuter and frightened passengers pulled the brake. The agency has told Gothamist that when a straphanger pulls the cord, it brings the train to an immediate stop using compressed-air brakes. The train crew must notify a control center, which in turn alerts police. The NYPD then advises the control center on how to respond, and that message is relayed to the train crew. It can take between 5 and 15 minutes for the crew to reset the braking function and get the train moving again.
Commuters pull the emergency brake about 1,000 times per year when there is no clear emergency. In 2009, the agency recorded 15 instances in which straphangers pulled the cord to respond to an emergency, like a sick rider, the paper notes. Some subway riders, like Brooklyn resident Zev David Deans, said the agency should more clearly outline when straphangers should, and shouldn’t, use the emergency brake. “They could put it in big letters — ‘Pull in case of …’ — and then the few reasons why,” he said. “If it just says ’emergency,’ you’re going to pull it for any reason.” An MTA NYC Transit spokesman said the current instructions are more than sufficient: “We think that it is clear.” (bold mine)
October 14, 2009
Traffic Congestion: Environmental Solution?
Posted by meltzerm under Public Transportation, Transportation Commentary | Tags: Automobiles, Congestion Pricing, David Owen, Gas Prices, Generation Y, J.D. Power, Japan, Los Angeles Times, Manhattan, New York City, Pedestrians, Subway System, Subways, Traffic Calming, Traffic Jams, Wall Street Journal |1 Comment
David Owen wrote in the Wall Street Journal that traffic jams, couterintuitively, are good for public transit ridership. His basic thesis is that “Traffic jams, if they’re managed well, can actually be good for the environment. They maintain a level of frustration that turns drivers into subway riders or pedestrians.”
Consider me unconvinced. Maybe short term congestion is a good thing as an inspiration for people to ride the subway. Though in New York people do not need much convincing. There is a superior subway system that can take people most anywhere in the borough of Manhattan. Driving in the city is usually out of necessity or vanity, not convenience. However, as it relates to other cities there may be a point.
If anything, I was confused by Owen’s article as it seemed to meander, arguing against congestion pricing because, “If the result of congestion pricing is simply to spread traffic out, thereby maintaining or increasing total traffic volume while also making driving more pleasant for those who continue to do it, then its putative environmental benefits are fictitious.” Yet I also very much agree with Owen’s conclusion:
Owen and I fundamentally agree that America needs to drive less and take transit more. Of course no congestion-reducing scheme, whether it is congestion pricing, traffic calming or another project is really marketable or fair without a public transportation alternative available. However, congestion might be useful for making localities desire better public transportation.
The future is bright though according to the Los Angeles Times, which reports that J.D. Power has found that teens are not interested in automobiles.
Of course the research on social network websites seems a little flimsy. But there is no denying that cars are incredibly expensive especially to a teen, when taking in the cost of a car, gas and insurance. One can only hope that such trends carry through to their adulthood and those current teens demand better transit and fewer cars.