44 inches in height rule - WSJ article (1164209) | |
Home > SubChat |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
(1164211) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jul 1 00:09:05 2012, in response to 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by Gold_12TH on Sat Jun 30 23:55:34 2012. So MTA's not normal, eh. Lots of agencies have the rule about over a certain age and under a certain height where they charge a half-fare for children, and over the height is full fare. |
|
(1164236) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Jul 1 07:04:01 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Jul 1 00:09:05 2012. It would be kind of hard to implement a half-fare system for children on the subway. Are they going to sell special children's Metrocards?It used to be based on age - I think children five and up had to pay. Or could five-year-olds get in free, meaning it was at age six that you had to pay? Certainly, seven-year-olds always had to pay. The three children per adult limit was imposed (I think) at the same time they switched to the height-based rule. I've never heard of it really being enforced, though. How high are the current turnstiles? I think they are less than 44 inches (floor to the bottom edge of the bar), but not too much less. Meaning kids that have to duck their heads just a bit would be OK, but not those who really have to bend down. |
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It
|
(1164238) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Jul 1 07:45:08 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Jul 1 07:04:01 2012. There is also another issue - the "ease of ducking under the turnstyle". Little kids can easily and EFFORTLESSLY duck under the turnstyle, while bigger kids have to get down on their knees and crawl under in an obvious movement that requires effort - usually at that point, I say it is time that the kids (or their parents) start paying.Mike |
|
(1164318) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Sun Jul 1 19:26:11 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by Dyre Dan on Sun Jul 1 07:04:01 2012. The rule should be as follows:Up to three children may ride for free if: * They are accompanied by a fare-paying adult at least 18 years of age, * They have not yet reached their 5th birthday (For children born on February 29, March 1 of the calendar year 5 years after their birth is considered their 5th birthday), and * They are less than 44 inches (112 cm) tall. Children who exceed either the age or height limits above must pay full fare. Unaccompanied minors must pay full fare, except if: * They are traveling to or from school or extracurricular activity, and * They use a Free Fare MetroCard provided by the school they attend. |
|
(1164331) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jul 1 20:56:18 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by R36 #9346 on Sun Jul 1 19:26:11 2012. And are the accompanying adults expected to carry around a birth certificate for each child? |
|
(1164333) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 1 21:00:44 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by randyo on Sun Jul 1 20:56:18 2012. It's sorta become a requirement the past couple of years ... and gotta be the LONG form. :) |
|
(1164338) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Jul 1 21:07:57 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by randyo on Sun Jul 1 20:56:18 2012. Proper pedigree papers would not hurt either. |
|
(1164363) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by Handbrake on Sun Jul 1 22:55:16 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by R36 #9346 on Sun Jul 1 19:26:11 2012. Taken from a 1970's NYCTA train ad:"Good enough to ride for free, good enough to ride your knee..." From what I have seen, under 44'er have no problem taking up seats on a crowded subway car or bus while full fare paying rider stands. |
|
(1164365) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jul 1 23:20:16 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by Handbrake on Sun Jul 1 22:55:16 2012. Absolutely so! |
|
(1164366) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 2 01:04:01 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Jul 1 21:07:57 2012. Wrong country. |
|
(1164367) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule – WSJ article |
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 2 01:08:51 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by Michael549 on Sun Jul 1 07:45:08 2012. Not an issue in the case of full-height turnstiles.Now the older-style turnstiles a baseball player could slide under . . . unless there's a transit cop playing umpire to declare that he's not safe at home . . . |
|
(1164373) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule – WSJ article |
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Jul 2 02:14:44 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule – WSJ article, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 2 01:08:51 2012. Not an issue in the case of full-height turnstiles.Except that they're a dangerous impediment in the event of an evacuation and thus must be accompanied by an emergency gate which allows almost anyone to enter, then open the gate to let the rest of their friends in. After all, there is no need to keep the fare media, so once you let them evade they're literally home free. |
|
(1164391) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by Lou from Brooklyn on Mon Jul 2 08:18:47 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by randyo on Sun Jul 1 20:56:18 2012. My Parents did, then again I was 6' tall by 6th grade and had been thrown out of children section of the Library two years before. |
|
(1164554) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Tue Jul 3 00:53:18 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by randyo on Sun Jul 1 20:56:18 2012. It wouldn't hurt... |
|
(1164577) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Tue Jul 3 07:44:03 2012, in response to 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by Gold_12TH on Sat Jun 30 23:55:34 2012. Well, this calls for a bit or reasonableness.Id; clarify it morally, if not legally by putting it this way to parents: If you'd let your kid ride by himself (even to school), he needs to pay, whether or not accompanied by you. If you won't let him out of the house alone yet, there's room for reasonableness. How to enforce that when a cop SEES a parent tell a child to duck under? I haven't figured that one out yet, LOL. But if a cop sees a kid evade the fare unaccomapanied, formal action should be taken. Before you send your kids out alone, teach them about the fare. |
|
(1164638) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 3 16:19:44 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by randyo on Sun Jul 1 20:56:18 2012. And so the reason for the 44" rule comes up. |
|
(1164653) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by E and F and sometimes J on Tue Jul 3 17:52:04 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by MainR3664 on Tue Jul 3 07:44:03 2012. "How to enforce that when a cop SEES a parent tell a child to duck under? I haven't figured that one out yet, LOL."The parent is ticketed for fare evasion. |
|
(1164655) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by E and F and sometimes J on Tue Jul 3 18:00:56 2012, in response to 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by Gold_12TH on Sat Jun 30 23:55:34 2012. A little off topic, but this city desperately needs an overhaul of the fare system. The MTA should have a family pass to make life easier. For example a day pass that cost $20 that can be used by five people, reinstating the $7 fun pass (stop fleecing tourist with pay-per-ride) and having all pay-per-ride fares last two hours regardless of how many times you re-enter the system, so no more of that fake OOS transfer where you lose your bus transfer. |
|
(1164883) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by B1bus on Wed Jul 4 17:14:54 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by E and F and sometimes J on Tue Jul 3 18:00:56 2012. The tourists I see are usually using single-ride-tickets. |
|
(1164885) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by Gold_12TH on Wed Jul 4 17:20:31 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by B1bus on Wed Jul 4 17:14:54 2012. they are newbies... mta likes making $ |
|
(1164939) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by B1bus on Wed Jul 4 20:54:13 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by Gold_12TH on Wed Jul 4 17:20:31 2012. I try to explain sometimes, and they think I'm crazy or they don't speak english. Occasionally, I get through to them and get a thank you. |
|
(1165012) | |
Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article |
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Thu Jul 5 08:21:10 2012, in response to Re: 44 inches in height rule - WSJ article, posted by E and F and sometimes J on Tue Jul 3 17:52:04 2012. Ok. |
|