You're right. He's even got the little hat.
It may seem like we're all being a little harsh, but there are really some serious flaws with this. Outside-the-box thinking is great and should be encouraged, but it helps to get a second set of eyes on an issue as well, especially if you've been working on something in isolation for so long (10000hrs is 40hr/week for 5 years straight btw). Without outside opinions your mind gets locked into one position, and you keep building off that position, compunding errors and wasting time.
Safety is important. Improving line efficiancy is important. You started out with a real life problem and tried to create a new solution, and I commend you for that. So the crux of your solution is both physical and temporal separation of 'out' and 'in'.
We (TTC riders) already informally use a temporal separation ('out', then 'in), and from my experience it works nearly flawlessly at every station (Y-B peak excluded). Not only does is work well...it's a bottom up, maintenance free, zero man-hour system.
Our physical separation is much less formal. Still, nearly all the time at nearly every station our user-generated 'stand to the side of the doors' method works perfectly. There are several stations (mostly during peak) where this system breaks down and you get a wall of 'in' passengers blocking the 'out' passengers. But in almost every case it is an issue of space on the platform, not of 'in' people rushing the doors. Where, at say St George, are you finding 1.2m (on each side) to dedicate to this? How is shrinking an already full platform going to effect passenger flow?
And that's not even getting into the unguided raising/lowering, the safety issues with raising/lowering vs sliding, the materials (1/32" plastic, ropes, etc), live currents near riders (on purpose!), capacity claims, etc. At the end of the day, people have been building subway barriers for years. There is a long list of safety and durability criteria that need to be met. The bidder that meets all those goals at the lowest price generally gets the contract. There is therefore already significant incentive to reduce cost. Fact is barriers cost what they cost for a reason.
I appreciate your passion for the issue, but I wish you had come here years ago and asked for some input on your invention(s). We could have talked you out of some poor ideas, and inspired you towards some better ones. We wouldn't have stolen your idea and sold it to the MTA or anything. We love this stuff and devote a lot of thought to it too, that's why we're here. We're like free consultants!
I don't think it was hard to visualize what Sharon was proposing. What we are having a tough time with is how this is going to get pulled off. How do you do this without one train running into the one in front of it (there are no express tracks)?
I think the idea is ludicrous because it vastly increases the complexity of the system. Can you imagine teaching all of Toronto to use such a system, especially without deploying express platforms? Good luck with that.
^ So in other words, you got nothing.
No engineer worth his salt is going to take your comment that 'unpredictables' are reduced at face value.
In your words, the "ultimate 'top' management" Would have to be Giambrione. I have to assume the quotes are there because he won't be "top" for "long".
Depends on whether you consider the organization's oversight (e.g. the Commission) to be part of management. I wouldn't. There's a reason the job titles of people on commissions and boards do not include the word "Manager".In your words, the "ultimate 'top' management" Would have to be Giambrione. I have to assume the quotes are there because he won't be "top" for "long".
Thanks, for your thoughts.
I now have a big meeting coming up with ultimate "top" management, I will not say exactly with who. But in my opinion it could not be bigger!!
Depends on whether you consider the organization's oversight (e.g. the Commission) to be part of management. I wouldn't. There's a reason the job titles of people on commissions and boards do not include the word "Manager".
Obviously we are trying to interpret Sharon's intentionally-vague phrasing, but I suspect it's meant to refer to people at Gary Webster's level.
At this point, I really take this with an entire salt mine.
For 10 subway stations, .................you make 1 singular change. You go to work in the opposit direction to connect with the "express subway", and even these people get to work faster than they used to.
No one is negatively effected.
Till 8:45, .........1. All trains are about 1/2 full to optimum capacity is reached. (adding 498,000 new spots, that were not available before...system was previously maxed out)
2. All trains get to work in about 1/2 the time.
3. All trains now commute twice as many people.
It goes to show THERE IS TRUTH TO THE FACT