Mal wrote:

IT's a legal requirement that the gate line be manned - I'd use the
emergency button.

Not technically correct. It's a requirement for the gates to be
monitored,
which can be remotely, and the emergency plunger activated.

Hi,

I've noted this gate manning issue before (although it didn't seem too
well enforced at Stamford Brook in the evenings that I could *see*) but
am a little confused by the real issue. Do the gates need to be manned?

Having moved to New York this summer, I am interested that despite being
a daily commuter I've not spoken to one member of MTA staff and apart
from a few ticket clerks (with big signs listing the tickets one has to
buy from the machine--which is pretty much all of them!) in their
cubicles, the subway seems to run fine without all the gate line staff
milling around. Indeed, as a fairly regular tourist to New York I had
the view that the tube was a much better, safer, cleaner, more efficient
mode than the NYC subway, but I have to say my 25 minute daily commute
on the 1 line from the Village to the UWS is a pleasure and we seem to
manage fine without any gate line staff (next train departure boards
would be nice though.)

So my question is, is the MTA putting its passengers in danger, or are
the gates of the NYC system very different from London's (they appear
more dangerous to me, but beyond cries of "health and safety" I am
unsure exactly what the argument for the gateline staff is anyway), or
are these "health and safety" reasons for manning gatelines actually a
very expensive policy decision with little benefit to passengers or the
commerical operator?

Any expert knowledge welcomed,

Tom

--
T.S.Cordiner
Columbia University, New York City.