"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
d wrote:
"Richard J." wrote in message
. uk...
d wrote:

I've noticed that lots of the overcrowding issues in stations
during rush hour are due to people bunching up and doing, well,
ridiculous things in public. People slowly meandering across
a foot tunnel, causing everyone behind them to stop and bump into
each other. Mothers dragging their kids along side them,
blocking the two-people-wide passageways.

They are not *blocking* the passageway. They just limit your
ability to walk faster, just as in any other crowded traffic
situation. Does it really matter if you get to the platform 5
seconds later? (The chance of missing a train due to that delay
is less than 5%.) How do you expect a parent to keep a small
child safe in a crowded passageway other than by holding the
child's hand?

They *are* blocking the passageway. Just as two cars travelling
the same speed down a dual carriageway block that, too.

You mean like on the M25 when the variable speed limits are in force?
Those are designed to maximise traffic flow on a congested road. People
overtaking and weaving in and out of lanes actually reduce total traffic
flow. Likewise in Tube passageways.

No, I mean like where inconsiderate road users cause congestion. Unless
you're suggesting those mothers & kids are actually government-instituted
station-calming schemes?

[snip]
I don't have a problem with mothers holding their kids hands. In
fact it's ESSENTIAL on the underground. My problem is with the
usual lack of giving a **** about what's around you. It's a
really, really common thing to see on the underground. If the
mother thought about it for 2 seconds, and walked the kid in front
of her,

Have you tried holding a kid's hand and walking him *in front of* you,
when he doesn't know where he's supposed to go?

That's why you can steer them by their hands. Kids aren't as stupid as they
look.

... she'd be protecting it a lot more than just letting it drag
slightly behind her through a crowded station during rush hour,
where any stray suitcase/briefcase/ipod/metro/umbrella could quite
easily take it out.
But I guess everyone should just form a queue behind the mother and
child, overcrowding the interchange,

No. Overcrowding occurs when there aren't enough trains to handle the
waiting passengers. Slowing down the arrival of passengers on the
platform, which the mother would achieve according to you, actually
reduces overcrowding.

No, that would be true if there was a uniform dispersion of passengers
throughout a station. Clearly that's not the case. I've seen
moderately-empty platforms next to jammed-as-**** pedestrian tunnels, simply
because the people were getting jammed up in the tunnels between the
platforms and ticket halls. All it takes is some asshat on crowded
escalators, and there can be knock-on effects down the rest of the
escalator, and indeed only clearing when the escalators become empty enough
for the foot traffic to recover. Here's an example: A crowded escalator,
the people on the left are walking, those on the right are not. Now, if one
person on the left decides to stop walking at the top of the escalator, only
for a few metres, it will undoubtedly cause those people behind them to
stop. Owing to the full nature of the escalators, that will cause the
people behind them to stop, and so-on. But by your logic, it's impossible
for that to happen, as overcrowding only happens on platforms.

blocking the escalators,

I thought we were talking about passageways.

I'm talking about everywhere passengers go on the underground, where there
is limited real estate for people to hang around in. Escalators, tunnels,
etc.


and eventually leading to station closures.

False logic; see above re overcrowding.

No - just stating that overcrowding happens only because there aren't enough
trains is false logic, as you pulled that out of your ass, obviously.

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

dave