8 ms·

Now explain why they put carpet in a train.

by jelling 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
happyopossum 4y ago
Because in the 60s it was unthinkable that someone would urinate on a public transit?
- Gibbon1 4y ago
  I remember the 1960's, at least the last half and yeah. If you took a piss on public transit the bus driver would beat the living fuck out of you.
telchior 4y ago
Not just carpet, but padded wool seats -- those were replaced with padded water-repellant vinyl a decade ago, which sounds like a long time until you realize that it had cloth seats for 40 years before that. Absorbent wool was, as you might imagine, unbelievably nasty. Among other things I saw on BART, I once saw a guy with severe flesh necrosis on his foot sit with said foot, bandages taken off, pressed against the seat. Of course, minor issues like diarrhea and vomit stains were more typical. As why carpets and wool, the answer is actually just about as interesting as the linked article. Back in the 60s / 70s when BART started operating, it was one of the first metro subways. Its creators envisioned it as a futuristic luxury ride, whisking businesspeople and tourists in and out of far-flung suburbs to the glimmering high-rises of San Francisco. Everyone would be wearing a suit or a nice dress, and they would sigh in relief each time they daintily sat down in these airline-style seats. The actual future turned out to be a bit more disappointing...
- notyourwork 4y ago
  No one imagines homeless and drug addicts riding their transportation.
  - jjulius 4y ago
    >No one imagines homeless and drug addicts riding their transportation. That's a pretty strong absolute; I'm certain that, at the very least, folk involved with public transportation do regularly consider homeless and/or addicts when covering various aspects of their service. Maybe not so much in the past, but these days it's basically a given.
    - asiachick 4y ago
      I'm not so sure. Bay area is the only transit systems I've been on that seems to commonly have homeless and drug addicts. I've used transit systems all over the world. The rest don't seem to have that issue. Maybe it's because of better social services or maybe it's because so many normies use those other systems that it doesn't become a place for homeless and drug addict to hang out.
      - ghostly_s 4y ago
        You haven't traveled much, then.
      - bowsamic 4y ago
        The London Underground circle line is famous for being a resting place for homeless people
        avianlyric 4y ago
        Was famous. Not so much anymore. It’s not being an actual circle line means it’s not as attractive to homeless people. You can’t just fall asleep and just ride in circles, you get up periodically and change trains now.
      - xdfgh1112 4y ago
        New York? London?
        Symbiote 4y ago
- sofixa 4y ago
  > Back in the 60s / 70s when BART started operating, it was one of the first metro subways. What does that mean? It wasn't the first in anything by any stretch of the imagination.
  - telchior 4y ago
    I know, the way I said it was poorly worded. It was a first in the minds of the planners and builders for, among other reasons, the approval process, the engineering conditions they built it under (a compressed air tunnel was required to keep out the mud and water from the Bay, I'm not sure if that was a first for just the US or the entire world), the amount of funding required (largest US public project to date), the specifications of the system, and the supposed comforts of the trains themselves. In short, it was supposed to be a revolutionary metro, not just "yet another metro system". As it turned out, they would have been much better served by copying what was tried and true.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  Have you ever seen the drawings from the late 1800s of what the subway was supposed to be in NYC? The future has been disappointing people for a very long time. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56200fcee4b02025054662d7/1460481769650-3VW122UYCOO0S3PX37FO/the-welcome-blog-tours-of-new-york-subway-nyc?format=1000w https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56200fcee4b020...
- seabrookmx 4y ago
  > first metro subways Uhh. No. London had the Underground literally 100 years before this and Boston had a subway around 1900. Paris, Moscow.. many subways predate BART.
inferiorhuman 4y ago
Because BART is an urban subway marketed to the white flight suburbanites. It was supposed to be luxurious not usable. That's why you got two doors at the cost of boarding speed and tons of seats at the cost of standing room.
kuschku 4y ago
That's not necessarily an issue — Deutsche Bahn uses carpet and fabric seats for second class and carpet and leather seats for first class as well. Even local transit, e.g., BVG frequently uses fabric as seat material. You just have to design it to be able to be cleaned easily and quickly.

Now explain why they put carpet in a train.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

happyopossum 4y ago

Because in the 60s it was unthinkable that someone would urinate on a public transit?

Gibbon1 4y ago
I remember the 1960's, at least the last half and yeah. If you took a piss on public transit the bus driver would beat the living fuck out of you.

telchior 4y ago

Not just carpet, but padded wool seats -- those were replaced with padded water-repellant vinyl a decade ago, which sounds like a long time until you realize that it had cloth seats for 40 years before that. Absorbent wool was, as you might imagine, unbelievably nasty. Among other things I saw on BART, I once saw a guy with severe flesh necrosis on his foot sit with said foot, bandages taken off, pressed against the seat. Of course, minor issues like diarrhea and vomit stains were more typical. As why carpets and wool, the answer is actually just about as interesting as the linked article. Back in the 60s / 70s when BART started operating, it was one of the first metro subways. Its creators envisioned it as a futuristic luxury ride, whisking businesspeople and tourists in and out of far-flung suburbs to the glimmering high-rises of San Francisco. Everyone would be wearing a suit or a nice dress, and they would sigh in relief each time they daintily sat down in these airline-style seats. The actual future turned out to be a bit more disappointing...

notyourwork 4y ago
No one imagines homeless and drug addicts riding their transportation.
- jjulius 4y ago
  >No one imagines homeless and drug addicts riding their transportation. That's a pretty strong absolute; I'm certain that, at the very least, folk involved with public transportation do regularly consider homeless and/or addicts when covering various aspects of their service. Maybe not so much in the past, but these days it's basically a given.
  - asiachick 4y ago
    I'm not so sure. Bay area is the only transit systems I've been on that seems to commonly have homeless and drug addicts. I've used transit systems all over the world. The rest don't seem to have that issue. Maybe it's because of better social services or maybe it's because so many normies use those other systems that it doesn't become a place for homeless and drug addict to hang out.
    - ghostly_s 4y ago
      You haven't traveled much, then.
    - bowsamic 4y ago
      The London Underground circle line is famous for being a resting place for homeless people
      - avianlyric 4y ago
        Was famous. Not so much anymore. It’s not being an actual circle line means it’s not as attractive to homeless people. You can’t just fall asleep and just ride in circles, you get up periodically and change trains now.
    - xdfgh1112 4y ago
      New York? London?
      - Symbiote 4y ago
sofixa 4y ago
> Back in the 60s / 70s when BART started operating, it was one of the first metro subways. What does that mean? It wasn't the first in anything by any stretch of the imagination.
- telchior 4y ago
  I know, the way I said it was poorly worded. It was a first in the minds of the planners and builders for, among other reasons, the approval process, the engineering conditions they built it under (a compressed air tunnel was required to keep out the mud and water from the Bay, I'm not sure if that was a first for just the US or the entire world), the amount of funding required (largest US public project to date), the specifications of the system, and the supposed comforts of the trains themselves. In short, it was supposed to be a revolutionary metro, not just "yet another metro system". As it turned out, they would have been much better served by copying what was tried and true.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
IIAOPSW 4y ago
Have you ever seen the drawings from the late 1800s of what the subway was supposed to be in NYC? The future has been disappointing people for a very long time. https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56200fcee4b02025054662d7/1460481769650-3VW122UYCOO0S3PX37FO/the-welcome-blog-tours-of-new-york-subway-nyc?format=1000w https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/56200fcee4b020...
seabrookmx 4y ago
> first metro subways Uhh. No. London had the Underground literally 100 years before this and Boston had a subway around 1900. Paris, Moscow.. many subways predate BART.

inferiorhuman 4y ago

Because BART is an urban subway marketed to the white flight suburbanites. It was supposed to be luxurious not usable. That's why you got two doors at the cost of boarding speed and tons of seats at the cost of standing room.

kuschku 4y ago

That's not necessarily an issue — Deutsche Bahn uses carpet and fabric seats for second class and carpet and leather seats for first class as well. Even local transit, e.g., BVG frequently uses fabric as seat material. You just have to design it to be able to be cleaned easily and quickly.