NYC cultural faux pas

Courtesy Kottke, a bunch of answers to the question, "What are some cultural faux pas in New York?" If I had to summarize the spirit of the responses I've read so far, it would be, "This busy, crowded place is our home and it's tough for us to get to where we need to be and to do everything we need to do in a timely fashion without killing each other. As a visitor, please understand this pressure and don't make things worse."

... we're used to running around our Habitrail in a systematic way. If you upset that, then it's bad. But it's worse if you can't seem to realize what you're doing. The sidewalks and subways are our highways. It's like driving too slowly or something if you lope around, walking four-abreast. It drives us crazy when you walk 3 or 4 abreast, arm in arm as if terrified of this place. Be situationally aware and ease up.

Situational awareness: exactly.

I confess to having a New York City attitude wherever I am. I have scant patience for those who are oblivious of the people in their immediate vicinity. Intellectually I understand that these people may be enthralled by the surrounding architecture, unfamiliar smells, exotic native denizens, etc., but it doesn't make me any happier that they're blocking the sidewalk when I'm running to catch a bus.

Oh, and there's a special circle of hell reserved for those who lean against stanchions (poles) on public transit. The rest of us want to hold them, dipstick. (Sadly, these idiots tend to be lazy, inconsiderate locals in my experience.) And you, standing in the aisle with the stuffed backpack, try taking it off so when you twist and bend to see whatever it was that caught your attention outside, you don't smack somebody with your outsized turtle shell.

If you find yourself in a subway station that is deep underground, and there is a longer-than average escalator ride back to street-level, please take a few seconds to take in your surroundings and exercise whatever skills of perception you may possess, however meager they might be. Hopefully, after a short amount of time, you will notice that on the escalator, those who wish to stand for the duration of the ride do so on the right side, and those who wish to walk their way up do so on the left.

I'll bet most people's experience with escalators is in malls, so permit me to explain that in cities and airports, escalators are almost a form of transit in themselves: they're part of the commute. You can understand, then, that a lot of people who use them are in a hurry. It seems to be common practice across the country to stand on the right so others can climb on the left. If you're visiting an urban area, get with the program. (Some places even have put up signs codifying this practice.)

To Muni Metro operators

I want to support unions, I really do. But the San Francisco Municipal Railway's operators union makes it really hard. And the worst of the bunch are the Metro operators.

When you witness their slow, inattentive, and often ineffective "work" on the Metro -- the electric streetcar portions of the transit system -- and you reflect that the Metro is supposed to be where the "best" operators wind up, it's all but impossible to feel any sympathy for these men and women.

That's why their authorization of a strike is so galling. Yes, as the article notes, it's "a fairly common tactic in labor negotiations," but I can't think of municipal workers who are less respected as a group than Muni operators.

Of course I've encountered considerate, more than competent, eminently respectable Muni operators. Unfortunately, they're the exception, not the norm. And I understand that being on the front lines of customer service for a system whose failures are far more celebrated than its successes is a wearing, demoralizing position in which to find oneself. I therefore cut Muni drivers a lot of slack: I don't expect them to be chipper and I don't hold gruffness against them.

But the Metro operators spend a third of their runs isolated from passengers. While underground, their trains are run by computer. They don't have to take fares from passengers at any underground station. I've seen them read newspapers while the trains roll through the tunnels. They really have that little to do while going to and coming from downtown.

Yet these supposedly best operators can't be bothered to explain delays to passengers, or to check that the doors are clear before closing them.

With the lowest burden of passenger interaction, Muni Metro operators as a group still manage to do it worst. That's contemptible.

(This rant was prompted by Akit's letter to the Muni operators union, with which I agree for the most part, but which reflection made me narrow down to Metro operators.)

Transit fantasy

In an otherwise encouraging story about light-rail expansion in Los Angeles, Robert B. Cervero, director of the University of California Transportation Center in Berkeley, is quoted from his email:

The science of public transit is not too complicated. It comes down to how time-competitive transit is with the private car. If it takes two to three times longer to get from Point A to Point B by transit, the vast majority of folks will drive. If it’s faster going by bus or train, then most will forsake their car and ride transit.

I'm pretty sure Cervero knows better. I certainly do, having been a dedicated transit rider for decades.

Choosing transit over the car is a multifactor decision. Speed is one factor, certainly, but so is cost, convenience (a trip to the bulk-discount store isn't going to happen on a bus), and what might be termed quality of experience (people for whom transit is genuinely a choice aren't going to tolerate the smell of dried urine, overcrowded vehicles, erratic driving, too-frequent stops, etc.).

So if all you're doing is heading to and from work, and it doesn't cost more than the amount you think you spend on gas (people never account for maintenance, insurance, and depreciation when calculating the cost of driving), and you don't need to carry heavy or bulky accoutrements, transit might appeal to you, especially if all-day parking is scarce.

That's a lot of caveats, isn't it? Trust me, even the most dedicated riders weigh these hidden costs.

Positing that ridership depends only on a single aspect of the ride invites unrealistic expectations of how much the system can reduce congestion. Riding transit is a habit it takes time to acquire, and it requires a culture that supports transit as an option even among people who don't regularly use it. Blithe, airy pronouncements like Cervero's just reduce the credibility of transit advocates.

Muni fare gate glitch

San Francisco's Municipal Railway System spent $30 million on a new fare gate system that lets you wave your hand to enter, no fare required. That wasn't the intention, but that's how it works.

The short-term solution to deal with the glitch? Stepped-up enforcement by Muni's transit-fare inspectors and police to catch the fare cheats. The offense carries a $75 fine.

Yeah, right.

As someone who rides transit all the time, I can tell you what will happen. Violators will figure out which stations are least patrolled, and they'll enter there. Even if an agent is on duty, you can bet he or she won't risk his or her neck to stop a gang of teens waving their hands at the exit sensors.

Or that gang will just keep using the "authorized-personnel-only" gates as they do now.