[PRCo] Re: Portland Green Line

[John Swindler]

I drove buses in Chicago and quickly learned to get the front door as close to curb as possible so that passengers would not step down from curb and then have to climb first step into the bus.  That can make the difference between making or losing a traffic light cycle, which is critical with short headways.  But most cities dont' operate 2-3 minute headways.

 

Anything that can be done to get the passengers aboard the vehicle quicker is a plus.  

 

Same thing can be observed at PTM.  Having to help the elderly struggling with steps on 66, trying to get people to use both front doors on a PCC during county fair, trying to get people to use the center door.  Likewise comparing the speed of loading at the low platform stations vs. the high platform stations on PAT's LRT system.  

 

Another step is to penalize people for using cash.  Day cards and passes are the way to go.  Discourage people from stalling flow of passengers boarding a vehicle while they try to put a couple paper dollar bills into a farebox.  SEPTA charges a 30% penalty for cash fares.

 

Also a correction - I would have preferred a PCC in Ghent, but ended up riding a low floor car.  Just as well as if provided an opportunity to observe stop dwell time.

 

J

 


 
> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 08:45:21 -0700
> From: pcc_sr at yahoo.com
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Portland Green Line
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: John Swindler <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
> To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 11:34:37 AM
> Subject: [PRCo] Re: Portland Green Line
> 
> Suggest taking a ride on the new electric mass transit 
> vehicles assigned to 66, 59 and 75 in Philadelphia. 
> Driver can pull up to a curb, passengers can walk 
> straight onto the trackless trolley and to a seat without 
> having to climb any steps. And then compare with 
> boarding a light rail vehicle in Philadelphia.
> 
> First encountered a low floor car in Ghent. Would 
> have preferred a LRV, but had to admit that the 
> low floor car was easier and quicker to board. 
> From a safety island, there is no need for ramps 
> or lifts to handle wheelchairs.
> 
> To link back to Pittsburgh, just compare a high floor 
> steps with a low floor car. 
> PTM has 4145 and 4398 for this purpose.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Mr.Swindler;
> 
> I don't live under a rock; I live in the real world.
> Philadelphia must be way behind the curve; I have
> often ridden low-floor buses here in the west. I know
> the concept. Is it really 'quicker?' Schedules are
> the same. Yes, it is 'easier,' but how hard is it to climb
> 3-stairs? The majority of those who complain are making
> a mountain out of a mole hill. Additionally, those who
> vociferously complain are the most capable and able bodied;
> those who really need such service are generally very
> quiet while working with what is available. Again, those who
> vociferously complain about 3-stairs are often doing so
> for the sake of complaining. There is a very fine line between
> ease and laziness isn't there.
> 
> I have not paid attention to details inside the bus but there
> appears to be much less room. Because the floor is low
> front seats over the wheel wells are missing; other seats may
> be missing as well. People themselves don't move any 
> faster; they often queue and move very slowly. Some have
> to stand and assess conditions in the whole bus before
> clearing and allowing others to move. I submit there is a
> much bigger problem with people being unprepared and
> unwilling more than being unable.
> 
> The subject line says Portland; on the Lrvs a ramp deploys
> to the island for wheelchairs. If a wheelchair passenger
> onboard does not alert the operator to the desired stop
> in advance then the operator must recycle the doors to
> deploy the ramp.
> 
> 
> Phil
> Without a 'coast' but not a 'cause.'
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> > From: John Swindler <j_swindler at hotmail.com>
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 7:38:45 PM
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Portland Green Line
> > 
> > Low floor is the way to go. Gets rid of ramps, lifts, and people climbing steps. 
> > ________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> > Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 08:58:49 -0700
> > From: pcc_sr at yahoo.com
> > Subject: [PRCo] Re: Portland Green Line
> > To: pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> > 
> > 
> > Mr.Swindler;
> > 
> > 
> > Getting rid of people does get rid of most safety concerns.
> > Your comments have been made as frequently as I have stated:
> > 
> > "The point I made which hasn't been addressed is the
> > side impact issue isn't it. After such a collision there
> > shall be more people come under the ADA law won't
> > there."
> > 
> > Is this another of many examples of history repeating?
> > We rave about one feature while openly ignoring obvious
> > concerns. We 'jump on board' feeling 100% safe, even 110%.
> > Then the accident happens; we rant: 'why didn't 'they' see
> > this problem?'
> > 
> > Yes; these low cars eliminate ramps and lifts but at what cost
> > in both $$$ and $afety?
> > 
> > 
> > Phil
> > Without a 'coast' but not a 'cause.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222985/direct/01/