Quote:
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Am I the only one who doesn't give a shit? Paint it pink for all I care, just as long as the thing gets me from point A to B. It's a subway car, not a work of art.
|
The best counter I could offer is that it connotes the impression of "newness" to a skeptical public.
All else being same (cost, efficiency, comfort, etc), most riders would feel better about a system in which they ride in
this compared to
this, despite no differences in functionality.
You might scoff, but something that arguably really adds very little to no cost to a tender has the potential to dramatically alter the psychology of riders: people are more amenable to fare increases when they are able to readily recognize improvements, people are less likely to litter, etc.
There's a reason car manufacturers try to connote a certain air of "luxuriousness" to even their lower-rung, mass market brands: people feel better when they are using something that feels like it was designed with care.
Put even more simply, it's why we fetishize hand-crafted goods and demonize mass-produced stuff.
It isn't even about the need to look "fancy," but about presenting a proper face to customers; particularly, in regards to buses. If something is poorly-designed you
will feel awful using it. Just think about your favoriate places to walk or just be in; I bet there's a big difference in how these places look compared to areas you hate.
Admittedly, things are improving when it comes to the
interiors of some of the newer rolling stock being acquired, lately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swede
Maybe it's the render, but that car looks like something out of the 70s. The same goes for the new rolling stock for Boston and most new ones NYC gets. Why are US metros sticking with trains that are just slightly updated old cars? Why not move to newer types like London's S-stock or Stockholm's C30?
|
The best I can come up with is that this is likely the true side-effect of Buy America (I personally have not seen enough convincing evidence that it, alone, drives up the costs of procurement, but that's another story): firms find one design that works and just continue replicating it for various reasons.
1) it's what their factories/suppliers are outfitted to produce - or already are producing
2) RFPs may be so strict that they force firms to offer "bare bones" submissions (from a design standpoint) in favor of other features
3) RFPs are so similar that firms try to maximize costs and shop around the same basic rolling stock, tailored as needed
4) firms think it's what agencies want/bids from competition look similar
5) transit agencies have a preference that their rolling stock look as homogeneous as possible (for whatever reason)
I don't really know if getting rid of Buy America solves this, as many suggest, since even Bombardier's contracts (
while still better than most) often look awfully similar.
Prev
Linear Mode
