This is something I often wonder when I see people charging their phones in random places in public. We've all seen them sitting on the airport floor near a wall outlet, or clustered up in a college hallway, or asking the bartender for a plug-in behind the bar. Though some places such as airports, libraries and coffee shops offer charging stations or plentiful outlets, they are still far from ubiquitous (and often in short supply even where they are offered).
Eventually, however, one of two things is bound to happen, and I'm curious which one you all predict it will be. Either: a) charging amenities will become more frequently offered until they become completely commonplace, much the way parking lots did after automobile travel took over. (It may not take the form of more and better charging stations; it could just be a change in the way regular power outlets are deployed in buildings of public accommodation.)
Or: b) technology will change such that our electronic devices no longer need to be charged, at least not frequently or in such a way that we need to allow for a time and place to do it in public. My prediction is inclined towards this option, since technology seems to develop at a much faster pace than building design, and I haven't noticed any great push to provide better charging options outside of a few specialized markets like airports and cool-people neighborhoods.
What's your guess?
Yes, b) for the reasons you mentioned.
I do think that b) is more likely to happen, since charging technology is moving at a much faster pace than building design. A common problem with these phone charging stations is that they seem to charge ultra-slowly (I suspect at the USB-Data spec of about 0.5 A), and generally render your phone unusable while charging. I'm much better off just carrying my phone's quick-charge charger, which can charge my phone to ~75% in about half an hour, around and finding an open power outlet.
A device of any type that "never" needs charged is a perpetual motion machine, which is a scientific imposibility. However the development of something that might hold such a charge that charging it in public would be unnecessary (say one that holds 10X current amounts of power) seems likely.
In theory, B would work. Today's phones have much better and longer battery lives than phones just a few years back. But, the phones are also more powerful, brighter, bigger, contain more memory, etc.
So if you want to retain a limit on certain technologies from years ago while using today's battery technology, you can get by going days without charging a device. But if you want today's modern technologies, you're going to have to continue to charge that battery!
Quote from: SP Cook on December 11, 2015, 09:45:40 AM
A device of any type that "never" needs charged is a perpetual motion machine, which is a scientific imposibility. However the development of something that might hold such a charge that charging it in public would be unnecessary (say one that holds 10X current amounts of power) seems likely.
Of course, but I can imagine a device that gets its charge without me having to charge it. It carries a charge, but it doesn't need to actively
be charged.
iPhone
My understanding is that there's deep skepticism that battery technology can advance much more than it already has, so while devices probably will become more power efficient over time people will likely find new reasons for phones and tablets to draw the same power they already do (higher-density screens, larger displays, more sophisticated sensors, higher speed connectivity, etc.). So I don't see the need for public mobile device charging going away anytime soon.
And the trend is definitely toward ubiquity of charging. When airplanes go into the shop to get new seats, they're almost always including USB ports and often 110V outlets as well. It's an expected amenity on high speed rail and finding its way into commuter rail as well.
Quote from: lordsutch on December 11, 2015, 12:39:41 PM
My understanding is that there's deep skepticism that battery technology can advance much more than it already has, so while devices probably will become more power efficient over time people will likely find new reasons for phones and tablets to draw the same power they already do (higher-density screens, larger displays, more sophisticated sensors, higher speed connectivity, etc.). So I don't see the need for public mobile device charging going away anytime soon.
You're right to point out that, even though technology improves, our demands on it seem to increase just as rapidly. Whereas I used to boot up my whole computer with just an 800kb floppy, I now seem to require storage in the tens of gigabytes for the system alone.
QuoteAnd the trend is definitely toward ubiquity of charging. When airplanes go into the shop to get new seats, they're almost always including USB ports and often 110V outlets as well. It's an expected amenity on high speed rail and finding its way into commuter rail as well.
Trains and planes, sure. But I'd still call that a fairly niche market (a big niche, perhaps, but a niche regardless); I'm not seeing that ubiquitousness in my day-to-day routine such as at workplaces and restaurants. Though perhaps that's because my day-to-day routine takes place in New York, where the on-to-go nature of things means that there's both a bigger need and a bigger challenge for getting devices charged. I'd probably never notice this if I had a desk I was at all day, and any interval in my time involved a trip in my car where I could catch up on a quick charge.
In large part, there wasn't any motivation to improve batteries before laptops, smartphones, etc. became the norm. There have been a few efforts at increasing power storage that appear to be very promising (notably, capacitors, geographer, and lithium gel) but they tend to vanish into oblivion for some reason. I'd say there was a conspiracy, but I don't see why someone would want to hold back power storage technology.
Of course, if humanity ever invents micro-fusion, it would be moot. But micro-fusion requires two technological advances that humanity is extremely unlikely to achieve in the near term (cold fusion and teleportation).
Really, tech is moving fast. But it will take a while before wireless charging becomes a norm (but at best I'd say this'll last for about 5-7 years before wireless charging kicks in). I will say b), but for now I'd say a), because charging ports should be the norm for buildings right now.
Quote from: empirestate on December 11, 2015, 12:03:48 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 11, 2015, 09:45:40 AM
A device of any type that "never" needs charged is a perpetual motion machine, which is a scientific imposibility. However the development of something that might hold such a charge that charging it in public would be unnecessary (say one that holds 10X current amounts of power) seems likely.
Of course, but I can imagine a device that gets its charge without me having to charge it. It carries a charge, but it doesn't need to actively be charged.
iPhone
How, from picking up waves in the air or something?
There may eventually be a swap-out battery device that can be charged up at home. You have 2 of them and switch every day or so. One will always be charged if you remember to do it after you swap the fresh one in.
Quote from: GaryV on December 11, 2015, 08:22:42 PM
Quote from: empirestate on December 11, 2015, 12:03:48 PM
Quote from: SP Cook on December 11, 2015, 09:45:40 AM
A device of any type that "never" needs charged is a perpetual motion machine, which is a scientific imposibility. However the development of something that might hold such a charge that charging it in public would be unnecessary (say one that holds 10X current amounts of power) seems likely.
Of course, but I can imagine a device that gets its charge without me having to charge it. It carries a charge, but it doesn't need to actively be charged.
iPhone
How, from picking up waves in the air or something?
Who knows? Things that are solar do it this way. Now I'm not sure we'll ever see solar iPhones, but the fact that something like this exists already for certain applications makes it easy for me to picture it for smartphones. But don't be misled into thinking I can picture it clearly enough to file a patent just yet!
Technology is not, currently, the rate limiting step in battery life of smartphones. See for example the Droid Turbo and its brag of a battery which can last for multiple days of heavy use.
There are two reasons this is not more common:
1) Cost. More battery capacity = more expensive phone.
2) Size. Society has decided a smartphone needs to be thin to be fashionable, the bigger battery takes up more space and means the phone cannot compete on thinness.
As for charging without a cord, aside from solar power it is entirely possible to achieve via induction. Devices that use this technology already exist, it is typical for electric toothbrushes. To have the phone not need to actively "be charged", it would seem this could in theory be achieved by integrating induction chargers into objects the phone routinely spends some time adjacent to - nightstands, car seats, train seats, desks/tables, and so forth.
Most likely option B. I have never used a charging station though. Between portables and car chargers, I get enough power
Quote from: Duke87 on December 12, 2015, 11:10:10 AM
Technology is not, currently, the rate limiting step in battery life of smartphones. See for example the Droid Turbo and its brag of a battery which can last for multiple days of heavy use.
There are two reasons this is not more common:
1) Cost. More battery capacity = more expensive phone.
2) Size. Society has decided a smartphone needs to be thin to be fashionable, the bigger battery takes up more space and means the phone cannot compete on thinness.
But surely, it is advancement of technology that enables the same performance at lower cost and in a smaller size?
Quote from: empirestate on December 12, 2015, 03:30:27 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 12, 2015, 11:10:10 AM
Technology is not, currently, the rate limiting step in battery life of smartphones. See for example the Droid Turbo and its brag of a battery which can last for multiple days of heavy use.
There are two reasons this is not more common:
1) Cost. More battery capacity = more expensive phone.
2) Size. Society has decided a smartphone needs to be thin to be fashionable, the bigger battery takes up more space and means the phone cannot compete on thinness.
But surely, it is advancement of technology that enables the same performance at lower cost and in a smaller size?
As mentioned, it goes hand in hand. Yes, batteries will get stronger while remaining the same size or becoming smaller. But there's gonna be more available on that phone to use. So the net result is battery life will remain about the same.
There are new charging kiosks on the sidewalk here with a solar panel and a whole lot of advertising on them. It's a little impractical, especially as it gets to the time of year when people don't want to stand around outside.
The best implementation I've seen of public charging is a bank of 10 or 12 indoor mini-lockers in a stack, doors about 4x6 inches apiece, where for $2 you set a password, hook up to one of the cords in an available locker, and walk away unconcerned about the security of your device while it charges.
And having recently upgraded by several generations of phone, I'll agree that all the new ways it has to devour energy cancel out the substantial increase in battery life. The most compelling argument I have heard for the gargantuan iPhone 6s Plus (aside from it being the Large Print version for, um, mature folks who need this) is that it allegedly has twice the battery capacity of the 6s. How much more of this is consumed by its enhanced screen and camera, I don't know.
I will see them increase over time, mainly in international areas. Not everyone will remember to bring a 110v 60hz adapter, they may still have their 240v 50hz adapter. Also even europe has issues with plug standardization. the USB standard is just that....a standard. There is no USA or Europe only plug, it is a world wide standard, with a standard amp range.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 12, 2015, 04:45:38 PM
Quote from: empirestate on December 12, 2015, 03:30:27 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on December 12, 2015, 11:10:10 AM
Technology is not, currently, the rate limiting step in battery life of smartphones. See for example the Droid Turbo and its brag of a battery which can last for multiple days of heavy use.
There are two reasons this is not more common:
1) Cost. More battery capacity = more expensive phone.
2) Size. Society has decided a smartphone needs to be thin to be fashionable, the bigger battery takes up more space and means the phone cannot compete on thinness.
But surely, it is advancement of technology that enables the same performance at lower cost and in a smaller size?
As mentioned, it goes hand in hand. Yes, batteries will get stronger while remaining the same size or becoming smaller. But there's gonna be more available on that phone to use. So the net result is battery life will remain about the same.
Sure; there will be an increased demand for performance, no doubt. My point, though it's not important, was only that cost and size are factors that are mitigated by technology, rather than being a separate reason.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 12, 2015, 07:09:15 PM
I will see them increase over time, mainly in international areas. Not everyone will remember to bring a 110v 60hz adapter, they may still have their 240v 50hz adapter. Also even europe has issues with plug standardization. the USB standard is just that....a standard. There is no USA or Europe only plug, it is a world wide standard, with a standard amp range.
I haven't seen a phone charger that was single-voltage in a decade. The main issue is the plug.
Planes usually have a "universal" socket that will accept the most common designs (American/Japanese, Europlug, UK/Ireland/HK). They're even creeping into hotel rooms in Europe.
Induction technology exists for phones as well. Qi standard. My Galaxy S6 has the technology. I'll probably buy an induction charger at some point, but I have a quick charger that does 2.5A. Qi only goes up to 1 because it loses current due to the induction process.
Quote from: cl94 on December 13, 2015, 12:09:05 AM
Induction technology exists for phones as well. Qi standard. My Galaxy S6 has the technology. I'll probably buy an induction charger at some point, but I have a quick charger that does 2.5A. Qi only goes up to 1 because it loses current due to the induction process.
iPhones do not have this technology. My local Starbucks has the charging spot in the tables, but for phones without the built in ability to receive the charge they have special adapters available to borrow from the front desk.
The need for the charging stations is because of the design of the cell phone itself. All iPhones and some other phones (*cough* Samsung S6 *cough*) are designed to have non-replacable batteries. (At least, not without dismantling the phone!). Thus, the need for either charging stations or the external USB battery packs.
Quote from: SteveG1988 on December 12, 2015, 07:09:15 PM
I will see them increase over time, mainly in international areas. Not everyone will remember to bring a 110v 60hz adapter, they may still have their 240v 50hz adapter. Also even europe has issues with plug standardization. the USB standard is just that....a standard. There is no USA or Europe only plug, it is a world wide standard, with a standard amp range.
I challenge you to find any consumer electronic device that doesn't have a dual-voltage charger or power supply. Really only things like appliances and hair dryers are single voltage anymore. People don't even really travel with transformers anymore since a simple plug adapter is sufficient.
Quote from: realjd on December 13, 2015, 05:23:10 PMReally only things like appliances and hair dryers are single voltage anymore.
Indeed, only really high-power devices have issues.
And Europe has total compliance, even if the UK-style plugs are different (and waaaay better than the other types - mostly as our house wiring used to be total shite) - the voltage is a standard 230V with some leeway either side (to meet UK/Ireland's 240V and everyone else's 220V without requiring a change).
America's low voltage is the big issue why kettles, hairdryers, etc have to be different either side of the Atlantic. No such issue exists when it comes to either side of the English Channel/La Manche. The frequency is different on the different continents too.
Quote from: empirestate on December 11, 2015, 01:53:53 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on December 11, 2015, 12:39:41 PM
My understanding is that there's deep skepticism that battery technology can advance much more than it already has, so while devices probably will become more power efficient over time people will likely find new reasons for phones and tablets to draw the same power they already do (higher-density screens, larger displays, more sophisticated sensors, higher speed connectivity, etc.). So I don't see the need for public mobile device charging going away anytime soon.
You're right to point out that, even though technology improves, our demands on it seem to increase just as rapidly. Whereas I used to boot up my whole computer with just an 800kb floppy, I now seem to require storage in the tens of gigabytes for the system alone.
QuoteAnd the trend is definitely toward ubiquity of charging. When airplanes go into the shop to get new seats, they're almost always including USB ports and often 110V outlets as well. It's an expected amenity on high speed rail and finding its way into commuter rail as well.
Trains and planes, sure. But I'd still call that a fairly niche market (a big niche, perhaps, but a niche regardless); I'm not seeing that ubiquitousness in my day-to-day routine such as at workplaces and restaurants. Though perhaps that's because my day-to-day routine takes place in New York, where the on-to-go nature of things means that there's both a bigger need and a bigger challenge for getting devices charged. I'd probably never notice this if I had a desk I was at all day, and any interval in my time involved a trip in my car where I could catch up on a quick charge.
Yes, so places where people do not drive as much would require charging stations (or outlets) to be more common, as these are places where people don't drive as much. And yes, these are also places where people tend to walk around while lookikng at their phone more.
QuoteThere are new charging kiosks on the sidewalk here with a solar panel and a whole lot of advertising on them.
More excuses to sell out to the marketing types, and to force even more chezzy messages for unnecesary products and services on the public. In a word - pathetic.
Quote from: mrsman on December 14, 2015, 05:59:41 AM
Yes, so places where people do not drive as much would require charging stations (or outlets) to be more common, as these are places where people don't drive as much.
Yes, and so far I don't really see it happening. But is that just New York, where so much of the infrastructure is so old that it's almost impossible to get anything upgraded (cf. the subway)? Or are other cities similarly far behind?
Quote from: english si on December 13, 2015, 05:31:46 PM
And Europe has total compliance, even if the UK-style plugs are different (and waaaay better than the other types - mostly as our house wiring used to be total shite) - the voltage is a standard 230V with some leeway either side (to meet UK/Ireland's 240V and everyone else's 220V without requiring a change).
America's low voltage is the big issue why kettles, hairdryers, etc have to be different either side of the Atlantic. No such issue exists when it comes to either side of the English Channel/La Manche. The frequency is different on the different continents too.
And then you have Japan where they can't even keep a standard voltage/frequency combination throughout their country.
Quote from: empirestate on December 14, 2015, 12:09:13 PM
Quote from: mrsman on December 14, 2015, 05:59:41 AM
Yes, so places where people do not drive as much would require charging stations (or outlets) to be more common, as these are places where people don't drive as much.
Yes, and so far I don't really see it happening. But is that just New York, where so much of the infrastructure is so old that it's almost impossible to get anything upgraded (cf. the subway)? Or are other cities similarly far behind?
It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade the Subway to include charging stations. Put them into new car orders. The energy used for charging would be made up for by the energy saved by new technology.
Quote from: cl94 on December 14, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
Quote from: empirestate on December 14, 2015, 12:09:13 PM
Yes, and so far I don't really see it happening. But is that just New York, where so much of the infrastructure is so old that it's almost impossible to get anything upgraded (cf. the subway)? Or are other cities similarly far behind?
It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade the Subway to include charging stations. Put them into new car orders. The energy used for charging would be made up for by the energy saved by new technology.
No, but it is hard to upgrade the subway itself. Or the expressways, or the steam lines, or...
iPhone
Quote from: roadman on December 14, 2015, 10:46:13 AM
QuoteThere are new charging kiosks on the sidewalk here with a solar panel and a whole lot of advertising on them.
More excuses to sell out to the marketing types, and to force even more chezzy messages for unnecesary products and services on the public. In a word - pathetic.
I suspect they are not built to endure being encased in a snowbank. It will be fun watching them weather.
Quote from: cl94 on December 14, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade the Subway to include charging stations. Put them into new car orders. The energy used for charging would be made up for by the energy saved by new technology.
Why is this necessary? Kind of like wi-fi on commuter trains. Focus on running the trains on time, reliably, and safety (which includes necessary maintenance), instead of adding pointless gimmicks that have nothing to do with what should be the prime mission of ANY transportation system - moving people from place to place.
If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their cell phone charged, then that's their problem. The public transit agency be not required to accommodate them.
Quote from: roadman on December 14, 2015, 07:58:11 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 14, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade the Subway to include charging stations. Put them into new car orders. The energy used for charging would be made up for by the energy saved by new technology.
Why is this necessary? Kind of like wi-fi on commuter trains. Focus on running the trains on time, reliably, and safety (which includes necessary maintenance), instead of adding pointless gimmicks that have nothing to do with what should be the prime mission of ANY transportation system - moving people from place to place.
If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their cell phone charged, then that's their problem. The public transit agency be not required to accommodate them.
Well, that escalated quickly...
iPhone
Quote from: roadman on December 14, 2015, 07:58:11 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 14, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade the Subway to include charging stations. Put them into new car orders. The energy used for charging would be made up for by the energy saved by new technology.
Why is this necessary? Kind of like wi-fi on commuter trains. Focus on running the trains on time, reliably, and safety (which includes necessary maintenance), instead of adding pointless gimmicks that have nothing to do with what should be the prime mission of ANY transportation system - moving people from place to place.
If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their cell phone charged, then that's their problem. The public transit agency be not required to accommodate them.
The public transit agency be obliged to treat its riders like customers, just as the highway agency does. Yours is an argument for shutting down rest areas ("If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their gas tank full or bladder emptied...") as well.
Even the airlines, who are leaders in the kind of contempt for the public expressed above, realize people's phones run out when they're away from their home or work, just as they realize that people get hungry, just as they realize that people need the bathroom. These are all basic facts of a travel mode that requires one to be away from some kind of base of one's own for a prolonged period of time.
Customer service means presenting a service that is desirable, not just one that does the bare minimum, remembering that your customers have other options.
At the very, very least, building goodwill among customers does not exactly hurt the T when the monthly public-relations disaster comes along.
Quote from: roadman on December 14, 2015, 07:58:11 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 14, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade the Subway to include charging stations. Put them into new car orders. The energy used for charging would be made up for by the energy saved by new technology.
Why is this necessary? Kind of like wi-fi on commuter trains. Focus on running the trains on time, reliably, and safety (which includes necessary maintenance), instead of adding pointless gimmicks that have nothing to do with what should be the prime mission of ANY transportation system - moving people from place to place.
If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their cell phone charged, then that's their problem. The public transit agency be not required to accommodate them.
Really, it's a marketing thing. Would people be more likely to use mass transit if they can use a Wifi network rather than having to use data?
It also depends how long they're on the train. Someone on a train for an hour could make good use of that Wifi.
^^ Long distance operators in the UK have it as a first class perk, and available for a token fee for standard class users (depending on the train - some have it in standard class for free as well).
The London Underground has free wifi (passworded, so its not that easy to get on to it unless you've sorted it out in advance) at stations - part of that is dealing with the lack of decent 3G/4G signals (they did roll out cell phone coverage).
A couple things before we get too far off base:
—Just remember this question is essentially about what you predict will happen, not what you think ought to happen. So even if you think it's frivolous and irresponsible for companies to provide charging amenities to their customers, if you foresee this happening before battery technology makes it unnecessary, that's still your answer.
—I didn't bring up the subway as someplace where charging amenities could be increased. Rather, it was an example of a system in NYC that is very slow in being upgraded (in terms of new lines, new stations, updated signaling, etc.) because it is so old and entrenched into the cityscape. I speculated that the same might be true of the city's building stock and public spaces, and wondered whether that sets off NYC as being behind the times with respect to charging amenities.
All right, carry on. :-)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 15, 2015, 08:48:33 AM
Quote from: roadman on December 14, 2015, 07:58:11 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 14, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade the Subway to include charging stations. Put them into new car orders. The energy used for charging would be made up for by the energy saved by new technology.
Why is this necessary? Kind of like wi-fi on commuter trains. Focus on running the trains on time, reliably, and safety (which includes necessary maintenance), instead of adding pointless gimmicks that have nothing to do with what should be the prime mission of ANY transportation system - moving people from place to place.
If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their cell phone charged, then that's their problem. The public transit agency be not required to accommodate them.
The public transit agency be obliged to treat its riders like customers, just as the highway agency does. Yours is an argument for shutting down rest areas ("If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their gas tank full or bladder emptied...") as well.
Even the airlines, who are leaders in the kind of contempt for the public expressed above, realize people's phones run out when they're away from their home or work, just as they realize that people get hungry, just as they realize that people need the bathroom. These are all basic facts of a travel mode that requires one to be away from some kind of base of one's own for a prolonged period of time.
Customer service means presenting a service that is desirable, not just one that does the bare minimum, remembering that your customers have other options.
At the very, very least, building goodwill among customers does not exactly hurt the T when the monthly public-relations disaster comes along.
Forgive me for sounding old school when I state that theprincipal mission of a public transit agency should be to provide a transportation service. And I could probably accept wi-fi, phone charging stations, etc. if these amenities weren't being provided at the same time the agency is continually raising fares, cutting back service, and skimping on maintenance.
Quote from: roadman on December 18, 2015, 10:58:44 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 15, 2015, 08:48:33 AM
Quote from: roadman on December 14, 2015, 07:58:11 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 14, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade the Subway to include charging stations. Put them into new car orders. The energy used for charging would be made up for by the energy saved by new technology.
Why is this necessary? Kind of like wi-fi on commuter trains. Focus on running the trains on time, reliably, and safety (which includes necessary maintenance), instead of adding pointless gimmicks that have nothing to do with what should be the prime mission of ANY transportation system - moving people from place to place.
If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their cell phone charged, then that's their problem. The public transit agency be not required to accommodate them.
The public transit agency be obliged to treat its riders like customers, just as the highway agency does. Yours is an argument for shutting down rest areas ("If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their gas tank full or bladder emptied...") as well.
Even the airlines, who are leaders in the kind of contempt for the public expressed above, realize people's phones run out when they're away from their home or work, just as they realize that people get hungry, just as they realize that people need the bathroom. These are all basic facts of a travel mode that requires one to be away from some kind of base of one's own for a prolonged period of time.
Customer service means presenting a service that is desirable, not just one that does the bare minimum, remembering that your customers have other options.
At the very, very least, building goodwill among customers does not exactly hurt the T when the monthly public-relations disaster comes along.
Forgive me for sounding old school when I state that theprincipal mission of a public transit agency should be to provide a transportation service. And I could probably accept wi-fi, phone charging stations, etc. if these amenities weren't being provided at the same time the agency is continually raising fares, cutting back service, and skimping on maintenance.
It's also part of increasing fare revenue and providing justification for government funding. Especially in places where driving is an option, providing internet service will encourage people to take public transportation, theoretically increasing ridership. Even if a ride takes 25-50% longer via public transit, there are quite a few people who would take advantage of the commute to get work done. The point of the amenities is to get wealthier individuals who would normally drive on the train or bus.
Quote from: roadman on December 18, 2015, 10:58:44 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 15, 2015, 08:48:33 AM
Quote from: roadman on December 14, 2015, 07:58:11 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 14, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade the Subway to include charging stations. Put them into new car orders. The energy used for charging would be made up for by the energy saved by new technology.
Why is this necessary? Kind of like wi-fi on commuter trains. Focus on running the trains on time, reliably, and safety (which includes necessary maintenance), instead of adding pointless gimmicks that have nothing to do with what should be the prime mission of ANY transportation system - moving people from place to place.
If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their cell phone charged, then that's their problem. The public transit agency be not required to accommodate them.
The public transit agency be obliged to treat its riders like customers, just as the highway agency does. Yours is an argument for shutting down rest areas ("If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their gas tank full or bladder emptied...") as well.
Even the airlines, who are leaders in the kind of contempt for the public expressed above, realize people's phones run out when they're away from their home or work, just as they realize that people get hungry, just as they realize that people need the bathroom. These are all basic facts of a travel mode that requires one to be away from some kind of base of one's own for a prolonged period of time.
Customer service means presenting a service that is desirable, not just one that does the bare minimum, remembering that your customers have other options.
At the very, very least, building goodwill among customers does not exactly hurt the T when the monthly public-relations disaster comes along.
Forgive me for sounding old school when I state that theprincipal mission of a public transit agency should be to provide a transportation service. And I could probably accept wi-fi, phone charging stations, etc. if these amenities weren't being provided at the same time the agency is continually raising fares, cutting back service, and skimping on maintenance.
Replace "agency" with "company" and "user" with "customer," and it becomes even more of a no-brainer to provide
revenue-generating charging stations. Why is that when the riders are just "users" it's better to just leave them
sitting on the floor every rush hour because that's where the outlets are, and because the agency judges massive public demand to be the result of its users being "too stupid or lazy" to provide them with a
revenue-generating service?
This only strengthens arguments to privatize the whole system.
Quote from: cl94 on December 21, 2015, 11:23:02 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 18, 2015, 10:58:44 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 15, 2015, 08:48:33 AM
Quote from: roadman on December 14, 2015, 07:58:11 PM
Quote from: cl94 on December 14, 2015, 02:21:09 PM
It wouldn't be that hard to upgrade the Subway to include charging stations. Put them into new car orders. The energy used for charging would be made up for by the energy saved by new technology.
Why is this necessary? Kind of like wi-fi on commuter trains. Focus on running the trains on time, reliably, and safety (which includes necessary maintenance), instead of adding pointless gimmicks that have nothing to do with what should be the prime mission of ANY transportation system - moving people from place to place.
If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their cell phone charged, then that's their problem. The public transit agency be not required to accommodate them.
The public transit agency be obliged to treat its riders like customers, just as the highway agency does. Yours is an argument for shutting down rest areas ("If people are too stupid or lazy to not keep their gas tank full or bladder emptied...") as well.
Even the airlines, who are leaders in the kind of contempt for the public expressed above, realize people's phones run out when they're away from their home or work, just as they realize that people get hungry, just as they realize that people need the bathroom. These are all basic facts of a travel mode that requires one to be away from some kind of base of one's own for a prolonged period of time.
Customer service means presenting a service that is desirable, not just one that does the bare minimum, remembering that your customers have other options.
At the very, very least, building goodwill among customers does not exactly hurt the T when the monthly public-relations disaster comes along.
Forgive me for sounding old school when I state that theprincipal mission of a public transit agency should be to provide a transportation service. And I could probably accept wi-fi, phone charging stations, etc. if these amenities weren't being provided at the same time the agency is continually raising fares, cutting back service, and skimping on maintenance.
It's also part of increasing fare revenue and providing justification for government funding. Especially in places where driving is an option, providing internet service will encourage people to take public transportation, theoretically increasing ridership. Even if a ride takes 25-50% longer via public transit, there are quite a few people who would take advantage of the commute to get work done. The point of the amenities is to get wealthier individuals who would normally drive on the train or bus.
I think another related issue is whether the wi-fi or the charging should be free or whether there should be a charge for it.
For charging, I believe that there should be a charge as the electricity is not free. I view this as similar to pay phones which used to be very common in many subway stations. You want to call, you can put a couple quarters in the machine for some charging time. This would also be fair, so that no single person would hog the outlet.
For wi-fi, I am not sure. I am not sure to what extent the extra costs involved are really measurable. Wi-fi may be useful for subway operations (MTA staff can communicate with each other) and I don't know if the extra cost to provide it to all users would really be significant.
Blut I do agree that in the era of rising subway fares, these extras should be funded by the users.
Why by the users that are already burdened? Why not by some other third party?
There was an article (http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2015/12/michigan_mall_is_the_first_to.html) about this published here a couple weeks ago. It's similar to what someone mentioned upthread, but without the cost to the end consumer.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 23, 2015, 08:02:20 AM
Why by the users that are already burdened? Why not by some other third party?
My thought. Get some company to sponsor it. Advertising opportunity.