Dogs On The Subway

[lyonscj]

the health code says NO, there for, it's NO. a large majorty of animals people keep as pets are banned within the city.

I'm not really sure what you're referring to. The health codes in many American cities (European cities are another matter) ban animals inside restaurants, supermarkets, etc--I've never heard that it has anything to do with trains. For one thing, what about trains that pass through a number of different municipalities with different health codes? And anyway, if animals were banned from trains by the health code, the NYC subway couldn't allow them in bags, could it?

I'm sure people do bring their ferrets on the subway in bags, crates, etc--in spite of the idiotic city ordinance that they aren't allowed as pets here. But I'm talking about dogs on leashes, and those are allowed on the Metro North, which means dogs on leashes riding trains is not banned by any health code relevant to the 5 boroughs.

the Transit museum keeps a cat, the one that lived there while I worked there was litter box trained, but he still went on the floor at the main enterance. what's to say a dog won't get confused at an outdoor station.

Mine never did. And what's to say it wouldn't happen at a Metro North station, most of which are outdoors? They're still allowed on Metro North trains and platforms--also on trains and platforms all over the world. It's obviously not any kind of problem.

the TA is not being mean,

Never said the MTA was being cruel to animals. I'm saying they're being cruel to themselves, and to their riders, by ignoring a great untapped revenue source, which could prevent at least some loss of service in future.

this is what the law says.

You don't even know what the law says. For example, if it's an unbreakable law that dogs outside containers aren't allowed on trains in NYC, then how come dogs outside containers are allowed on the Metro North?

change the law, then try to convince the TA.

I'm honestly not sure who precisely has to be convinced--whether you'd have go through the city council, or whether the MTA could change the rule on its own authority, but again, this isn't about blaming anyone. It's a dumb rule, and it should be changed.

Why should it drop what it's doing to worry about your dog getting around?

Money.

and yes, I've had a dog, and yes, I ride the subway. for the record, I haven't seen or smelled the results of a person taking a leak in a long, long time.

Lucky you.

I've never seen or smelled the results of an animal going on a train, even though thousands ride the subways every day--mainly in bags, but that would still smell pretty bad, you know.

Now, if you need to respond again, would you please at least take into account the undeniable facts? The MTA lets leashed dogs ride on the Metro North--they can board in any station, including those within the city limits. This would obviously be a huge problem if the dogs were peeing all over the place. And in fact, a huge number of rail systems around the world allow dogs on a leash.

The MTA is gasping for air now. I'm simply pointing out a handy oxygen tank. People would gladly pay extra to bring their dogs on the subways during offpeak hours. It would be an easy change to implement, using existing Metrocard machines, and could be promoted cheaply with signs and billboards on the platforms and trains.

Anyway, thanks for bumping the thread, man.

http://washingtontykes.blogspot.com

[Kamen Rider]

The TA is not a part of the MTA except at the executive level.

I've done a little servey of transportation providers's websites and thier animals polices, not coounting service animals and ones in containers.

Amtrak:no
PATH:no
SEPTA:no
MTA Maryland:no
WMATA:no
Miami-Dade:no
LA Metrolink: no
Caltrain:No, and even puts limits on service animals (ie, they can be kicked of the train if they act up)

CTA, PATCO,LACMTA and BART don't mention wether they allow animals non service animals or not.

only SF MUNI allows dogs, only outside the rush, only in leashed and muzzled, only one per car, and that might still be driver discgression. (says "May be allowed")

so far, this is looking like ainamsl on transit equals exception, not the rule.

[lyonscj]

I agree--in the United States, allowing leashed dogs on trains or buses is unusual, but the United States isn't typical of the rest of the world. Most of Europe allows them, along with cities like Melbourne, and Toronto. The rules differ slightly from place to place, but it's very common to be able to take your leashed dog on a train throughout much of the civilized world. In that sense, America is the exception--and yet we're a nation of dog lovers. Our President-elect gets asked about what kind of dog he's going to get for his daughters as much as he's asked about his cabinet picks.

It's not really an argument to say "It's always been this way in the past". We're not living in the past.

And again, you fail to mention Metro North, Seattle, Boston, and many ferry services that allow leashed dogs.

To save you further research, here's a list of policies regarding dogs on public transit across the U.S. and Canada.

http://www.dogfriendly.com/server/newsl ... tion.shtml

I actually included that link in the blog article I've posted here several times.

http://washingtontykes.blogspot.com

I know what the rules are here, and I think it would be in everyone's interest that they be changed. There is obviously no reason they can't be changed. You seem to have dropped your assertion that the health code prohibits it (not as long as they don't serve food on the subways), and it seems like you're just saying "They can't do it because they don't do it." That isn't an argument.

And again, dogs are allowed on many public conveyances all over the U.S.--in containers. Some lines also want them confined to specific areas. I think Amtrak needs to change its policy, and could reap huge financial rewards by doing so (many people would opt for rail travel over air travel if they could have their dogs with them on the trains), but this isn't about rail service all over the country. I'm specifically proposing the rules be changed so that people can bring leashed dogs onto the NYC Subway, and that the MTA can charge a separate fare, and thus harness a new source of revenue, at a time when New Yorkers are terrified at the prospect of losing service. Dogs would also provide security, since nobody is going to mug you when you have a large dog, no matter how friendly he or she may be. There could be a rise in crime on the subways in the coming years, with the economy worsening. We could lose a lot of riders to fear. Dogs helped reclaim large areas of Central Park for New Yorkers in years past--they could help us here as well.

The benefits far outweigh the problems, in my opinion. Do you have any arguments that don't involve falling back on precedent (while ignoring the rest of the world)?

[Kamen Rider]

You want a reason? It's not in everyone's best intrest to allow pets. I've already got enough to worry about on my commute, I don't need to add putting up with some moron's pooch. I'm already borderline cluastrophoic I don't need Fido barking to add to my discomfort.

The simplest answer is if it's really worth it verse the liabilty the issue would bring up. A car can become crowed at anyime of day. the dog's overall floor area that it takes up would be more than one person. If there was a dog or two in a crowed car, then there would be less room for people. Also, there is still the question of how the dog would react to the crowd. Even the most well trained animals still have thier basic servival instinct. If it feels threatned, it will defend it'self. And of crouse, If Lassie bit someone, the Transit Authority would be held just as liable becuase they allowed the dog on the system. New York is a very sue happy city if you've forgotten. This isn't a "this is how it's been done, therefore it must be done this way" mindset; this is a "which is less of a risk to me, to other riders, to the employees and to the TA. going back to the crowed car. A person runs onto a Southbound A at 125th. and they are alergic to pets, or they have a deep fear of dogs. And, cramined in next to that person is someone's pooch. Is fair that they must suffer just so you can bring your pet on the subway?

[lyonscj]

You want a reason?

A rational reason. You got one?

It's not in everyone's best intrest to allow pets.

It's not in everyone's best interest to allow lots of things that are, in fact, allowed. How about bicycles during rush hour? How about screaming kids? I don't like either of these things, but they are allowed. I don't get my back up about it. It's not just about me. It's PUBLIC transportation.

I've already got enough to worry about on my commute,

You commute during offpeak hours? Seems to me you could easily move to another car.

I don't need to add putting up with some moron's pooch.

Didn't you say you had a dog yourself, or had in the past?

I'm already borderline cluastrophoic

Um--?

I don't need Fido barking to add to my discomfort.

I've never seen (or heard) a dog bark on the subway--not the ones in bags, not the ones on leashes.

The simplest answer is if it's really worth it verse the liabilty the issue would bring up.

Kamen, if you're going to bring liability up, could you possibly spell it correctly?

A car can become crowed at anyime of day.

I withdraw the question.

the dog's overall floor area that it takes up would be more than one person.

A very skinny person, maybe. But clearly many other rail systems, including some of the great subways of the world, have no problem dealing with this.

If there was a dog or two in a crowed car, then there would be less room for people.

Okay, if that's a typo, it's a very consistent one. Anyway, seems like guide and assistance dogs manage fine. This strikes me as a rather trivial issue. Shall we ban fat people? How about people with b.o.?

Also, there is still the question of how the dog would react to the crowd. Even the most well trained animals still have thier basic servival instinct. If it feels threatned, it will defend it'self.

Again, this is offpeak, and there can be guidelines for when a dog can ride. Again, this works on most of the subway systems in Europe, as well as in Boston.

And of crouse, If Lassie bit someone, the Transit Authority would be held just as liable becuase they allowed the dog on the system.

Interesting legal opinion (I'm guessing you're not a lawyer--call it a hunch). So I've been mugged on the subway in the past--can I sue the MTA for letting violent delinquents onboard?

New York is a very sue happy city if you've forgotten.

So's Boston. Find me one instance of a lawsuit filed against that city's transit authority because they let leashed dogs on the trains--and show me one instance of the MBTA having to pay damages. And since they do not charge people an extra fare for their dogs, you'd have to figure they'd dump the policy in a minute if it was costing them money.

This isn't a "this is how it's been done, therefore it must be done this way" mindset; this is a "which is less of a risk to me, to other riders, to the employees and to the TA. going back to the crowed car. A person runs onto a Southbound A at 125th. and they are alergic to pets, or they have a deep fear of dogs. And, cramined in next to that person is someone's pooch. Is fair that they must suffer just so you can bring your pet on the subway?

About as fair as your irrational fears forcing me to NOT bring my pet on the subway--your problem is that you're only thinking about yourself--face it, if you didn't have problems with dogs, you'd have no problem with this idea. Your discomfiture is entirely psychological. Mine is financial--I have to get cabs, hire dogsitters, not to mention that I can't take my dog to the animal hospital best suited to his needs, unless it's within walking distance, or I can afford to shell out for cabfare--on top of the vet bills. You can move to another car. I can't move to Europe.

As to allergies and phobias, this is about the dumbest reason yet--dogs AND cats are ALREADY allowed on the subway. You really think somebody with a really serious allergy or phobia isn't going to have that triggered by a dog or cat in a bag? I'm EXTREMELY allergic to cats--should I petition the MTA to stop letting people bring them onboard, where their dander can easily escape through the ventilation holes necessary for any humane animal container? Well, I won't do it. I love animals, and seeing them on a train calms me, and makes me feel like it's a warmer, richer environment. And many people, with or without allergies, would have the same reaction. And that should be balanced against the few people who can't escape their own irrational fears.

You've done a great job laying out all the bad reasons for not allowing leashed dogs on the trains, in exchange for their owners paying a separate fare--a scheme that could help prevent the MTA having to scale down service, thus leading to less crowding. You say you're claustrophobic--well--get ready to suffer a lot more jampacked subway cars, along with higher fares. How much additional grief will every single subway rider have to face in the coming months and years--and how much could be avoided if we set aside this silly prejudice, and accepted the fact that to live in cities, dogs have had to learn how to deal with crowds. A dog on a train knows he's not on his turf, and thus his aggressive instincts (if any) are subdued. Obviously we don't let aggressive dogs on trains, but the fact is that it's incredibly rare for any dog to be aggressive on a train. Otherwise it wouldn't be such a non-issue in Europe. They do force people with pit-bulls and certain other breeds to muzzle them on public conveyances--that's a possibility here, though I think it should be geared to behavior, not breeding.

Explain to me how so many subway systems, and bus systems, and commuter rail systems, many of which work BETTER than ours can allow leashed dogs. Europe is far ahead of us in terms of mass transit, and has been for a long time. And European mass transit is extremely dog-friendly. One reason it's so effective--give people a chance to accomplish with public transportation what they would otherwise have to use a car to accomplish, and they will happily leave their cars at home (or live without them entirely).

Cars are a luxury we have to learn to live without.

Dogs, like mass transit, are a necessity of civilized existence. Perfect together.

[Kamen Rider]

OK. I think I've had enough of this. My problem is not your dog. My problem is people like you, who stand around and whine and complain because they want something. Something that they think is reasonable, but others don't and the person gets offended, IE what is happening here. If someone was here trying to turn the LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch into a rail trail, I’d have something to say as well. Also, some would agree with me that my arguments are reasonable.

I had a dog when I was a kid, and we have a dog that lives with my grandparents down the street. I simply don't see the need for it.

I'm not trying to change your mind; I’m trying to tell you you've walked into unfriendly territory. And a word of warning; don't try this on Subchat, because you'll be ripped to shreds. Some of the people there have shoved little kids to get at the front window of a train, so imagine the yelling you'd get there. This is a fan board, we take trains extremely seriously. So far, all you’re talked about is you and your complaints about how your dog should be on the train. I’m sure some people have come to this thread and agreed with you, and some have come and agreed with me. The thing is you’re not going to drum up support in a community that treats the Subway something close to a religious relic.

[lyonscj]

OK. I think I've had enough of this.

That remains to be seen.

My problem is not your dog.

Of course not. It's never the dog. That's what people like you always say. You only have a problem with the people. But you don't want to ban the people. Only the dogs. Who you have no problem with. Logic itself.

My problem is people like you, who stand around and whine and complain because they want something.

I don't see why whining because you DON'T want something is any better. I think if you had more of a sense of humor, you'd realize I haven't whined once.

Something that they think is reasonable, but others don't and the person gets offended,

For the record, by 'others' you mean YOU. And I'm not offended. You gave me exactly what I needed. And are free to go on doing so.

IE what is happening here. If someone was here trying to turn the LIRR Rockaway Beach Branch into a rail trail, I’d have something to say as well. Also, some would agree with me that my arguments are reasonable.

Sure, who said otherwise? But you haven't made them well, and have consistently failed to respond to any of my points. And you should learn to spell, if you want to be taken seriously. It shouldn't be so hard to correctly spell the word 'crowded' on a forum about the New York City Subway system.

I had a dog when I was a kid, and we have a dog that lives with my grandparents down the street. I simply don't see the need for it.

You're not a dog person. Understood. You don't feel the need. Fine. I once rode bikes, don't do so anymore, but I don't go postal when I have to be crammed up against one during rush hour. I see needs beyond my own.

I'm not trying to change your mind;

Given how weak your arguments have been, that's a darn good thing.

I’m trying to tell you you've walked into unfriendly territory.

Translation: You're speaking for everyone else, assuming nobody else here shares any of my opinions or perceptions--which is patent nonsense.

And a word of warning; don't try this on Subchat, because you'll be ripped to shreds.

Thanks for the recommendation. :D

Some of the people there have shoved little kids to get at the front window of a train, so imagine the yelling you'd get there.

Um--for the record, are you deploring these people, or commending them?

This is a fan board, we take trains extremely seriously.

Again with the 'we', paleface.

So far, all you’re talked about is you and your complaints about how your dog should be on the train.

About how something that is commonplace elsewhere in the world could be harnessed to help get the MTA out of a hole. Seems to me somebody serious about trains would at least give that some consideration. Unless you just want to study them as relics of the past (checks further down)--you know, maybe you should stick to rail lines and traditions that no longer exist? Plenty of those to go around. Promise you won't find me on any discussions of the Superchief, Pullman cars, or the Atchison Topeka & the Santa Fe.

I’m sure some people have come to this thread and agreed with you, and some have come and agreed with me.

Which would mean I'm not alone. Right?

The thing is you’re not going to drum up support in a community that treats the Subway something close to a religious relic.

Try checking out my thread on the MBTA forum before you draw that conclusion. The thing is, people who live in cities where a policy to allowed leashed dogs already exists really don't have a problem with it--and that, in a nutshell, is my argument. It's only a problem where it doesn't exist. So the only way to get rid of the problem.......

But in any event, I'm not trying to 'drum up support'--I'm just honing my arguments. And frankly, I need tougher competition. Subchat, you say?

[Kamen Rider]

He's what I mean. It' not about the dogs, it's not about my problems, it's not about any of that. What it's all about is that every few months someone, such as yourself, pops up out of no where with an idea, or set of ideas. they think it's the greatest idea they think it should be done, but don't stop to think the whole plan out.

here's one recent poster with such behaviour. He had a few route planing ideas, none of which were realalistic.

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 68&t=52394

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 68&t=52393

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 68&t=52395


The simple fact is the enviroment that you seem to think is all in your favor is much more complex. what seems to be a simple propesition in fact carries a ton and a half of questions you have yet to answer. you've simply been cheering for your idea, but not filling in gaps.

For example what would you do if you're a TA employee a have to deal with an animal on the subway?

[lyonscj]

I'm sure there might be some kvetching, or maybe even outright flaming if I raised this on Subchat, but have you considered the possibility that I don't hold myself responsible for other people's unresolved personal issues and social disabilities?

You say I haven't addressed every single possible thing that could go wrong? Um--so what? I'm not writing a formal proposal. I'm not under contract to come up with one. I'm posting on a discussion board, and I have some ideas. I see other people suggesting things that have ramifications they don't spell out in depth. One of the reasons I came here was to hear suggestions, criticisms, but yours have been mainly pretty weak.

What would I do if I were an MTA employee and had to deal with an unruly dog? Mainly thank God it wasn't an unruly human.

But again, this has not proven to be a problem in Boston. Go over to that thread I started on the MBTA forum here, and you'll see that not one person who's responded on that thread has related a single negative incident. It works beautifully, and people don't even have to pay extra to bring their dogs onboard. I'm proposing that New Yorkers pay extra because our transit system is in such a state of financial crisis now. It's the way of all responsible city dog owners to want to contribute to the society they live in. Our dogs train us very well.

The issue is not whether they might sometimes be problems--of course there would. The issue is whether the benefits would sufficiently outweigh the disadvantages. I think it's pretty clear, based on the success of such policies on rail systems all over the world, that they do, and then some.

PS: So I guess you hadn't had quite enough of this?

[Kamen Rider]

you can't just stand up and say "boston does it, therefore it will work here". that argument doesn't hold water. Chicago has Double decker EMUs. European cites have them two. But does that automaticly mean we can have it?

just becuase the people who responded to your thread about boston said they never had a problem, doesn't mean they don't happen.

[lyonscj]

KR, you seem to be employing what is known as the 'invincible skepticism' approach--if I can't prove in advance something will work perfectly, that means it won't work at all--even if it has worked beautifully, in many different places all over the world, including a city of equivalent age, just a short train ride to the north of us.

To say your point doesn't hold water as an argument would be too kind--it's not an argument at all. It's an attitude. And if your attitude had been prevalent when the current subway system we have was first being planned, it would never have been constructed at all.

Now if that's all you got, maybe we should let this go for now. I was hoping for more, but I see I'll have to go elsewhere to find it.

And btw--'European cites have them two'. Might want to proof that a bit more carefully.

[R36 Combine Coach]

The official NYCT regulations are:
(21 NYCRR 1050.9)

1.Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (2) of this subdivision, no person may bring any animal on or into any conveyance or facility unless enclosed in a container and carried in a manner which would not annoy other passengers.
2. Paragraph (1) of this subdivision does not apply to working dogs for law enforcement agencies, to service animals, or to animals which are being trained as service animals and are accompanying persons with disabilities, or to animals which are being trained as service animals by a professional trainer. All service animals and animals being trained as service animals must be harnessed or leashed.
3. Upon request by a police officer or designated employee of the Authority, a trainer must display proof of affiliation with a professional training school and that the animal is a licensed service animal or an animal being trained as a service animal. Upon request of a police officer or designated Authority personnel, a passenger must provide evidence that an animal claimed to be a service animal and thus exempt from the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subdivision qualifies as such or is being trained as a service animal. Such evidence may be supplied through: the display of a service animal license issued by the Department of Health of the City of New York or by other governmental agencies in New York or elsewhere authorized to issue such licenses, the display of an identification from a professional training school that the animal is a trained service animal, the presence of a harness or a marking on a harness, or the credible verbal assurances of the person with a disability using the service animal or animal being trained as such. For purposes of this paragraph, credible verbal assurances may include a description of one or more tasks that the animal performs or is being trained to perform for the benefit of the person with a disability.
4.As an alternative to any of the methods described in paragraph (3) of this subdivision for providing evidence that an animal meets the definition of service animal, persons with disabilities who use service animals who do not have a service animal license or other written documentation that the accompanying animal is a service animal may apply to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority for a service animal identification card.
5. Law enforcement officers or designated Authority personnel have the right to refuse admission to or eject any passenger accompanied by an animal, including a service animal, which poses a direct threat to the safety of other passengers..

[lyonscj]

Um--thanks.

What this proves is that dogs are already allowed in certain circumstances, and cause no noticeable problems.

Service dogs are not fundamentally different from ordinary dogs. They are simply trained to perform a variety of tasks for disabled people. They would be useless on the subways if it were not for the fact that most dogs adapt very easily to travelling by subway.

For example--people worry about dogs relieving themselves on the trains. But service dog training has nothing to do with that. The dogs have been housebroken before they even begin their special training. And that's all the training they need to know they don't do their businesss on a train, bus, plane, or automobile. It can happen, sure--if a dog is sick, incontinent, or very upset. Same as it can happen to a human. People who have dogs who can't control themselves will be most unlikely to bring them on trains, and risk fines, not to mention tongue-lashings.

You talk to people who live in cities where leashed dogs are allowed on train, you don't hear about messes, or attacks, or dangerous allergic reactions.

Dogs adapt so easily to the subways, in fact, that there are many documented instances of them successfully entering subway systems alone, and going from place to place, without any human accompaniment. They figure it out without even being trained.

There was a time, I'm sure, when service dogs would not have been allowed. The rule was changed. It can be changed again.

[4266]

I was on the NY Subway some years back with a friend and her dog. She had a service dog harness, which she claimed was needed for her asthma (?). For the record I highly doubt the dog was a certified service dog. To tell the truth I felt bad for the dog. She was obviously freaked out by the noise and we nearly got into a fight with another passenger when she (the dog) tried to climb up on the seats. Though I was friends with the owner I was somewhat taken aback by her obvious disregard for the comfort of her fellow passengers. That said, I have been in Berlin and Barcelona where the dog owners seem far worse behaved than the dogs themselves. I wouldn't have any problem with sharing a subway with a well behaved dog. The only problem would be if there is no way to ensure that the dog is well behaved. Perhaps some sort of license (like in Seattle?) would ensure the dog be well trained and would add revenue. I assume this is the general idea being proposed?

one more thing I had to comment about-

for the record, I haven't seen or smelled the results of a person taking a leak in a long, long time.

and you live in NEW YORK CITY!!! I lived off of the J Train for years and I have to say I wish I were so lucky... Do you ever go outside?

[Kamen Rider]

I was on the NY Subway some years back with a friend and her dog. She had a service dog harness, which she claimed was needed for her asthma (?). For the record I highly doubt the dog was a certified service dog. To tell the truth I felt bad for the dog. She was obviously freaked out by the noise and we nearly got into a fight with another passenger when she (the dog) tried to climb up on the seats. Though I was friends with the owner I was somewhat taken aback by her obvious disregard for the comfort of her fellow passengers. That said, I have been in Berlin and Barcelona where the dog owners seem far worse behaved than the dogs themselves. I wouldn't have any problem with sharing a subway with a well behaved dog. The only problem would be if there is no way to ensure that the dog is well behaved. Perhaps some sort of license (like in Seattle?) would ensure the dog be well trained and would add revenue. I assume this is the general idea being proposed?

one more thing I had to comment about-

for the record, I haven't seen or smelled the results of a person taking a leak in a long, long time.

and you live in NEW YORK CITY!!! I lived off of the J Train for years and I have to say I wish I were so lucky... Do you ever go outside?

For refernce,the NYPD and NYCTA have cracked down on homeless in the subway. that, and they've started to put public bathrooms back in.