"accident"

Again, the 6 train took its time getting to Union Square. I was waiting in the station for seven minutes and the platform was packed by the time I got there – I doubt a train had just left. When it did come, everyone packed on to the train as per normal and I didn’t have to be involved with any of the next-to-the-door choreography politics since I was going deep into the Bronx and wouldn’t have to worry about the door for another forty five minutes. As the train got peopled, an announcement came over the loudspeaker indicating that the train was sitting in the station for an extra few minutes at the behesting of one “train dispatcher.” I’m not exactly sure why this would have happened, but I wasn’t surprised. Between 14^th street and 42^nd street, the train rested in each station for an extra 10 or so seconds – not enough time to warrant an announcement, but enough to be noticeable and to allow ones sense that something is not quite right to begin activating. At Grand Central, the train became even more packed and the conductor came on, a male voice, stating that customers should not despair because “there are trains behind us” and that “all available doors” should be used. “Are people using unavailable doors?” said a man speaking to his younger female friend. All in all, the male conductor’s voice was fairly relaxed and cordial, but then a female voice came over the loudspeaker a bit more agitated to announce that “We are having delays, so there is crowding. If you don’t fit in the train step aside of the doors and wait for the next train!” and I thought this was odd. I mean, clearly the train was having delays. But, if I remembered correctly, the delay was at least partially created by the fact that the train had been held in Union Square for mysterious reasons by the “dispatcher.” And then, delays were compounded by extended stays in each of the subsequent stations. How do all of these things fit together? Is there some different word that we should be using other than “delay” to describe when trains come late due to non-technical or mechanical issues? The train being held in the station by the “dispatcher” is not a delay – it is a purposeful act. Anyway, I don’t know that the vocabulary exists to describe what that is, which makes it all the more frustrating. Like, when someone pretends to pour water on your head just to mess around, and then winds up actually pouring the water on you – even if he didn’t mean to wet you, can that really be called an accident? Not really. But, I don’t think we have a word for that…

Anyway, at 59^th street the announcement was made that 86^th street would be the next stop. We would bypass the next few stops. I can only presume that this measure is taken so as to atone for the “delays” and to bring the train back closer to “schedule.” But I ask this: who cares about a subway schedule? Just send the trains and keep regular service! So, at 86^th street, some of the people waiting there might not have had to have waited as long for their train to arrive as a result of the skipping many stops method of delay correction. But, even more people are inconvenienced. Everyone that had to get off at 68^th and 77^th was inconvenienced because they had to get off the train and wait for another. Everyone waiting at the platform on 68^th and 77^th street was inconvenienced because not only did they have to wait for an extended period of time, but now they had to watch a train pass them by for no reason and wait for an extra few minutes for the next train. Basically, everything gained by skipping the stops is lost from the perspective of those who either get off or on at 68^th or 77^th. Not to mention that after 59^th street, with the exception of 125^th street, more people are getting off than on the train, so crowding wouldn’t be the issue. So again, why skip the stops? To maintain a schedule? Then why hold the train in the station at Union Square?