What do video game manufacturers hope to gain with strict digital rights management?

As I’m writing this, I’m staring at a SimCity launch module. According to the module, five of the nine global servers are available, and four are busy–EA is “patching” the game a few servers at a time.

The game came out Tuesday, and I played for five hours or so. When I got home from work, it took a while to download but otherwise let me in pretty quickly. However, by midnight (presumably when the entire US was home from work and had eaten dinner), the servers failed and I had trouble getting back in. These problems persisted into the morning, and, after an afternoon of being up and running, are down again this evening.

SimCity, like Diablo 3 last year, requires a constant internet connection to play. This was surprising to a lot of people, because, unlike Diablo, which is an action RPG/MMO, SimCity is primarily a single-player game. Multiplayer capability was added, and, after trying it out, it’s a great addition, but the game is still largely single player. Cities (people) can work interactively, to share resources, but it’s one person designing a city. So it doesn’t seem like it’s necessary.

The reason for the constant connection is not for a seamless multiplayer experience, Blizzard, and now EA, are concerned about piracy. Rightly so–I’m sure Diablo II, Starcraft, SimCity 4 and The Sims 2 and 3 were all very high up on the list of most pirated games. Developers look at these piracies as stolen games, that is, every copy of a game that’s pirated is a copy that wasn’t bought, and X dollars not given to the rightful owner.

Digital rights management, or DRM, makes it more difficult to pirate games (or music/movies; iTunes used to require authorization before accessing media purchased by another iTunes account–this is no longer true) by ensuring that the product is legitimate. Both Blizzard and EA have required users to enter in a CD key for over a decade. However, you could usually install multiple copies of a game using the same CD key. In the case of Diablo 2, both copies couldn’t play multiplayer at the same time, but all users of the CD key could play single-player no problem. The Sims and SimCity 4 didn’t have any multiplayer components, so there was no real safeguard.

Last year, Blizzard, rolled out the most strict DRM yet–requiring a user to be online all the time with their highly-anticipated Diablo 3. This enabled them to make sure all copies of the game were authentic–the fact that it was much easier to connect to a multiplayer game was a nice side-effect. However, requiring all users to be online all the time means you need the servers to handle a ton of traffic, all the time, with no hiccups.

This is unrealistic. You’re going to have server issues sometimes, meaning players can’t play a game they paid for. And instead of talking up the great game to all their friends, people are going to instead complain about server issues.

And guess what? On launch day, no one could get in. People (not me) took the day off from work to play, but instead got an error code, or worse, access to the game, only to get booted after a few minutes. It did not go over well amongst the otherwise loyal fan base. Metacritic.com, which compiles the ratings of games from legitimate sites like IGN, Gamespot, etc, has an overall score of 8.8/10, which is solid. However; the fan score is a mere 3.8/10. Abysmal. Why this discrepancy? The DRM was largely to blame.

People didn’t like Diablo 3 very much, and the DRM was the main reason.

Clearly, the DRM is negatively impacting players’ enjoyment of Diablo, even in recent reviews. People who are still playing Diablo 3 (I’m not) get disconnected occasionally, due to server issues or issues with the player’s own internet connection. Regardless of who is at fault, people feel they should be able to play some version (single player) of they game they paid $60-$80 for. And who can blame them?

Fast forward almost year to March 5th. SimCity is released, with the same strict DRM. The fact that SimCity requires users to be connected all the time is baffling. While there are multiplayer elements, it wouldn’t ruin the game if you removed them. The game is, and always has been, an independent, single-player experience.

But if I’m on the fence about buying SimCity, and I read reviews like these (Metacritic user score of 2.0. For context, a game called Hooters Road Trip got a user score of 4.0), why would I buy the game? Why buy a game I’m not sure if I can even play?

And if I already bought the game (which I have), why would I feel encouraged to tell my friends to buy it? Sure, it’d be fun to play and experience with them, but that’s assuming we can all log in to the same server and not get booted after an hour.

Which brings us back to the reason all this is necessary.  EA/Maxis want to eliminate piracy. I get that. The developers don’t want to give away a product which they’ve worked on for the better part of a decade, for free.

However, I would argue that, with a strict DRM, combined with bad server performance, EA cut off its nose to spite its face.

Let’s say the number of players who bought the game, instead of pirating (because the DRM prevents them from doing so) is represented by X. And let’s say Y is the number of players who won’t buy the game because of the DRM, but would have otherwise.

Is X larger than Y? Doubtful. However, if X is larger than Y, EA’s business model is working, since the DRM forced more pirates to buy than it turned away would-be buyers. Right?

Maybe not. If the group of people who bought the game, no matter what–is unsatisfied, they won’t encourage others to buy the game. Worse, they might discourage them from buying. And the fact that pirates are no longer playing means there are a lot fewer people playing the game in general. Less exposure, less chatter about the game. In fact, when you try to shut the pirates out, they backlash, hard. I have a feeling a large majority of the negative reviewers of Diablo 3 and SimCity never seriously played either game. They rate it low because of the DRM and because they weren’t able to play for free.

In a DRM-free game, you have a much larger population playing the game. Not just because of piracy, though that’s a factor, but because of word-of-mouth. You have to figure that the positive word-of-mouth reviews of those who pirate the game may influence others to actually buy the game. By shutting out the pirates, you lose a lot of that word-of-mouth endorsement, and replace it with hostility, as reflected in the user reviews.

This is the kind of word-of-mouth endorsement you get when you have strict DRM.

I don’t mean to justify piracy. Developers deserve to be paid for their hard work. I would like to think pirates buy the games they truly like, and use piracy as a means to test a game. I know that’s probably not true except in rare cases. But a strict DRM punishes the people who are huge fans of the game and paid money for the game. Most pirates were never going to pay for the game, and certainly won’t now because they don’t want to support games with strict DRM.

There needs to be a solution that balances anti-piracy measures with a solid gameplay experience with limited interruption. Maybe multiplayer games get constantly checked for authenticity, to ensure illegitimate copies of the game can’t play multiplayer. And maybe all copies must be checked for authenticity at least once every two weeks, meaning you don’t need an internet connection for single-player most of the time, just once in a while. Determined pirates may find a way around this less-strict DRM, but it’d go a long way towards ensuring those who paid for the game are as satisfied as possible while still keeping a large chunk of the pirates out. It’d be less demanding on the game’s servers, since not every active player would be online all the time. And if the servers do go down every so often, at least players can play the game.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a middle-of-the-road solution like this becomes the commonplace within the next 10 years. Always-online DRM clearly doesn’t work, at least without flawless server capacity, which is probably impossible. EA and Blizzard should find a way to patch their games to allow for some use of the game without connection to their servers.

What the new NHL divisions should be named

The NHL is reportedly working on a divisional realignment that would move Detroit into a division with three other Original Six teams (Toronto, Boston, and Montreal), and would generally minimize travel distances, especially between time zones. The realignment would create divisional playoff matchups, reduce travel times for in-division games (especially for Detroit, Columbus, and Winnipeg), and cultivate regional rivalries.

Of course, the names of these divisions are dumb. As it stands now, the Eastern Conference consists of the Central and Atlantic divisions, and the Western Conference consists of the Midwest and Pacific divisions. I actually think the divisions themselves work very well as the NHL proposed. Geographically, it’s odd that the Florida teams have to travel to Canada 3 times a year and vice versa, but I’m guessing they formed the Midwest Division first, because they wanted to maintain or cultivate the rivaries between the New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania teams. The rest of the East teams got thrown in with the Central Division.

The NHL is the league that used to have cool division names (the Adams and Patrick divisions in the Prince of Wales conference, and the Norris and Smythe divisions in the Campbell Conference. So much cooler. So I fixed them below:

Name the divisions after appropriate Hall of Famers.

 

The Orr Division, named after the greatest defenseman, and some would argue, greatest player of all time, would replace the Central Division (what’s central about this division??), consisting of Boston, Buffalo, Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Detroit, Florida, and Tampa. Apologies to Gordie Howe on this one, but Orr gets the nod here. Rocket Richard and about 5 other Canadiens get a nod here too, but did you think I’d give it to a Canadien?

The Lemieux Division replaces the Atlantic Division, which consists of the New York Rangers, the New York (Brooklyn) Islanders, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Carolina, and Washington. Honorable mention to Mark Messier, but really, Lemieux gets this hands-down.

The Midwest Division was the trickiest, but I’ll call it the Hull Division, after Bobby Hull, who played most of his career with the Blackhawks and Winnipeg Jets. The Hull Division consists of Chicago, Winnipeg, Colorado, Dallas, St. Louis, Nashville, and Minnesota.

Finally, the Pacific Division becomes the Gretzky Division. Gretzky played on 4 teams in his career (which hurts his legacy in my mind). The first of those two teams were the Oilers and Kings, who both play in the “Pacific Division”. He also coached the Phoenix Coyotes, which did not go over very well. So Gretzky gets all the softie west-coast teams.

It’s weird to put Hull in the same breath as Orr, Lemieux, and Gretzky, but I wanted to pick players that played on teams in that division.

How did I do? Would you have chosen different Hall-of-Famers? Would you change the divisional makeup in any way?

Thoughts on the Mass Ave Corridor project in Arlington, MA

On Tuesday night,I attended a meeting on the Mass Ave Corridor Project in Arlington, MA. Currently, Mass Ave is extremely wide and has no travel lane markings, but generally acts as 2 lanes in each direction. The project proposes wider sidewalks, wide 10-foot parking lanes/bus stops (so that buses can completely enter the bus stop), and 5-foot bike lanes on each side of the roadway. It also proposes two 11-foot eastbound travel lanes and one 14-15 foot westbound travel lane, which is that wide so that cars can pull over for emergency vehicles. 

This seems absurd to me. I’m not intimately familiar with this part of Mass Ave (I worked on a project farther west) or how things operate out there, but there are two things that jumped out at me. First: Why two lanes in one direction but not the other? This seems like a cop-out to me; according to town meeting members who spoke at the meeting, three different engineering firms have said that only a two-lane cross-section is needed, not three. The project is intended to improve pedestrian safety, and providing cars two travel lanes when they only need one is a huge safety issue; just because a car stops for a pedestrian in one of the two travel lanes doesn’t mean one in the second will stop too. 

If two travel lanes eastbound aren’t necessary, the 11 feet dedicated to the second lane could be used for turning lanes in either direction (where necessary), pedestrian refuge islands, a landscaped median, even wider sidewalks, etc. But it seems like pressure from the public, who knows much less about how traffic works than the engineers and planners do, caused this “compromise” design which is not as safe or inviting as a two-lane cross-section. 

Another safety issue for pedestrians is unnecessarily wide lanes. To paraphrase Jeff Speck and his book Walkable City, the widest passenger vehicle isn’t more than 6.5 feet wide, yet we provide 11 and 12-foot travel lanes in areas where we’d like to have slower travel speeds. Well, on Mass Ave, they’re proposing a 14 to 15-foot wide westbound lane, to provide room for vehicles to pull over for emergency vehicles. Look, as a cyclist, I hate when people drive or park in the bike lane, but I think I’ll make an exception if you’re pulling over for an emergency vehicle. The idea of giving cars 3-5 extra feet in a travel lane to prepare for something that happens only a few times a day is extremely puzzling. Imagine what’s possible with that 3-5 extra feet? Even wider sidewalks (and shorter crossings), or a buffer between vehicle traffic and bicycle traffic. 

Dedicating 10 feet for parking lanes and bus stops is also very puzzling. Boston’s complete streets guidelines say that parking lanes should be seven feet wide. Cars tend to use the amount of space you give them to park; if you give them 10 feet, some will park 2 feet away from the curb. I realize they’re trying to prevent buses from sticking out into the travel lanes (or, in this case, the bike lane) and giving space for car doors to open, but there are other solutions available. Make the parking lane 8 feet wide, with a 2-foot buffer between parking and the bike lane. At bus stops, even if the bus encroaches upon the buffer, at least it’s not in the bike lane. The buffer essentially protects the cyclist from the door zone (though 3 feet would be ideal; 7-foot parking lanes are a tough sell). 

I can’t help but feel that the design proposed on Mass Ave was over-engineered so as to not anger as many people as possible, rather than creating the best design possible. There’s no doubt the design is better than the sea of asphalt that’s out there today, but it’s really a great opportunity to create a true downtown feel in East Arlington, derailed by motorists who only care about smooth traffic and engineers who caved on their two-lane cross-section design. 

SimCity Planning — What Maxis got wrong in the new SimCity

I love SimCity. SimCity 2000 was the first game I spent serious time playing as a kid. It was also my introduction to city planning. I could build roads and highways, railroads, and subways.

I have played SimCity 4 quite religiously since it was released in 2003, and over the past month, I’ve played about four hours playing the beta for SimCity, the fifth installment of the series, which is due to be released on March 5th, 2013. Since the last installment was released, I’ve increased my experience in city planning considerably, and now it’s hard to play and not think about some of the aspects of the game that, from a planning standpoint, are not accurate.

I don’t mean to be overly critical of the game–it looks amazing, and it’s the best city planning simulator out there–but the core game designers are not planners by trade. Ocean Quigley, SimCity‘s creative director, is an artist. Will Wright [edit: not Wil Weaton, who's an actor], who developed the series prior to the new installment, went to school to be an architect and eventually became a game designer. The fact is, the game is designed fantastically, and it’s worth a try if you’ve ever played a SimCity game or enjoy the concept of urban planning.

However, looking through the lenses of a planner, there are some features about the new SimCity that just bug me.

1. Traffic
Traffic, aside from balancing the budget, has always been the most difficult challenge in SimCity. It’s not an easy thing to simulate–even traffic simulators that engineers use are fundamentally flawed. But some of the core assumptions the game makes about traffic, or rather, how traffic works in a city, are irksome. 

In the new SimCity, skyscrapers can only appear next to high capacity roadways.

A, More lanes does NOT mean higher building density
In the new SimCity, the designers ditched the concept of zoning for high densities (light residential, heavy commercial, etc.) and decided to let the city grow by itself. Cool! It was always a bit annoying, in previous versions, to go back to your first neighborhood and replace the zones with denser ones once you got rolling with your metropolis. Now, zones develop based on a few factors: desirability, space, and roadway capacity.

That is to say, if you have a two-lane roadway (one in each direction), zones won’t develop past a multi-family home or a 2-story office building (don’t quote me on that) because the roadway doesn’t have the capacity to handle dense traffic.

Well, this isn’t always true. With a good public transit system, most roadways can handle denser development. Think of the downtown areas you know best. How many total lanes are on the road? I’m guessing it’s not more than 4, and it’s very likely 2. The Financial District in downtown Boston, home to some of Boston’s tallest buildings, consists mainly of single-lane one-way roadways with parking on both sides. A densely-settled neighborhood needs great access; however, it’s incorrect to assume that all this access must come from the roadway in the form of vehicle traffic. Most commuters arrive in downtown Boston using public transit and, increasingly, by cycling.

Higher capacity roadways tend to be less bicycle and pedestrian (and, by extension, transit)-friendly because of long wait times to cross streets and long exposure times crossing streets. Plus, if SimCity is assuming that Sims commuting by car are able to park at the office (in a garage, presumably), pedestrians and cyclists would be discouraged from using such a corridor due to the high number of turns in and out of driveways. In real-life cities, Boston in particular, high-capacity roadways are used as thoroughfares, and vehicles who wish to park in a lot or garage near their office building access that lot or garage using a minor, low-capacity street.

The most important aspect of high-density development is the ability for people (or Sims) to move between their home and work quickly. Anyone who has heard of the concept of “induced demand” knows that more capacity does not mean faster travel times; typically, once capacity is added to a roadway, the volume will increase to a point where the road is congested again. SimCity assumes that higher capacity roads yield faster travel speeds, which would mean more Sims can get to an office building than a smaller road. In reality, if the city is a certain size, that road will always be congested. Better of just taking the subway… if SimCity provided a subway tool, that is. More on that later.

B. One-way roads

In SimCity 4, one-way roadways were finally added. One-way roads are confusing in cities and are confusing in SimCity 4– it’s harder to find your way around, especially in non-grid cities like Boston. However, they’re not always a bad thing; they do allow for awesome traffic techniques like the “green wave” (once you get a green light on a major one-way street, you can time the other lights to turn green right when you need them to), as anyone who has driven in New York City knows. They have the benefit of allowing cars to pass cars who are trying to parallel park while still having a pretty small cross-section.

Anyways, Maxis took them out in the new SimCity. Ocean Quigley tweeted to me that they may be included after ship as an update. It’s not a deal-breaker–I tend to avoid them–but if you wanted to create the next NYC, with its green waves, or Boston, with it’s maddening web of one-way streets, you’re out of luck for now.

2. Parking

Parking seems to be provided at each property, whether you can see a parking lot or not. On-street parking is not shown anywhere, possibly for visibility reasons.

Parking is such a huge issue in urban planning. Nearly every project I work on has at least a small parking aspect, and often times, it’s the main focal point of the project. Parking is the most contentious issue with the public when trying to get a project done. Businesses don’t want to lose parking spaces on the street. Garages are expensive, and either take up space and are ugly, or are really freaking expensive (if underground).

Parking isn’t included in SimCity. I’m not too sad about this–it’s a really annoying aspect that probably shouldn’t be in the game purely because it’s too annoying. But in a game that allows you to pump oil, build casinos, and upgrade buildings, it’s a bit puzzling as to why parking isn’t included in the game.

When I say that parking isn’t included, I mean it’s a non-factor. There are no cars parked on streets, no parking garages, no ploppable surface lots. Residential homes have driveways until they get really big, and commercial/industrial/utility zones have parking lots (until the commercial zone gets really big). Unless I missed something in the beta, the only parking aspect that’s included in the beta is a Park and Ride station, which allows Sims to drive to a bus stop, rather than walk, increasing its effective range. This doesn’t solve the issue of where cars go when a Sim is at work or at home in a high-density building.

3. Bicycle Accommodations
In 2013, it’s no secret that bicycles are the new frontier in terms of city design. Cities, especially in the coastal US, are retrofitting their roadways to allow for safer, more convenient, and more comfortable bicycle travel.

There is no bike infrastructure in SimCity, even the new release. This is disappointing; like in real city planning, bike facilities have so much potential.

Bike lanes? What are bike lanes? What are bikes?

As I discussed earlier, in SimCity, there are different roadway sizes that can handle different densities. Let’s assume the low-density roadway is safe for bike travel–the street you grew up on, for example. However, a medium-density roadway could be upgraded to include bike lanes, and a high-density roadway could be upgraded to include cycle tracks or buffered bike lanes.

Maybe the programmers make it so more people cycle from low- and medium-income families. Maybe they only cycle if their commute is short and if their entire route is on a low-density roadway and/or on a roadway with a bike facility, in an area with low air pollution and low crime rate. Maybe it has economic impacts (residents and businesses are happier, etc.). Maybe Sims that bike to work are less likely to get sick (an acceptable substitute for a lower obesity rate). Maybe if bike facilities are added, there isn’t enough space to have a streetcar too (which isn’t always the case, but it would make for additional strategy).

Maybe there’s a new park type, a “bike boulevard”, where cars are restricted but pedestrians and bicyclists can use to commute or just visit for fun.

See? So much potential. A shame that there’s not even mention of bikes in the game.

4. Pedestrians
It was always tough to design for pedestrians in SimCity. It’s easy to understand why; if Sims can walk everywhere, the traffic challenge wouldn’t be so challenging. Generally, Sims aren’t willing to walk more than a few blocks to  get to or their destination (often a transit station), so they give up and drive.

Sadly, this isn’t far off in suburban America. I used to drive around the corner to the pizzeria when I was in high school. But walking around in pedestrian-friendly areas is  much more fun and interesting than driving.

Like cycling, pedestrian accommodations have so much unmet potential in SimCity. Sims have always walked a bit, but there are plenty of options for convincing Sims to walk a little bit farther to get to that pizzeria or transit station. As I mentioned above, maybe a ped/bike boulevard makes longer walks more palpable. Maybe you can upgrade roads to be more pedestrian friendly, with wider sidewalks for more comfort and space for businesses to put outdoor seating. Maybe plazas, which already provide a boost commercial happiness, become destinations for pedestrians. Like cyclists, maybe walking Sims are encouraged by low crime, low traffic, and low pollution.

Maybe living within walking distance of a transit station or commercial zone is a big plus. In cities today, the highest property values belong to neighborhoods in close proximity to vibrant neighborhoods, not in the middle of residential sprawl. Why can’t they do that in SimCity?

5. Transit
Transit generally exists in four forms–Subway, heavy rail, light rail, and buses. SimCity 4 provided 3 of the 4. The new SimCity also provided 3 of the 4, but unlike SimCity4, which included heavy rail, buses, and subway, SimCity dropped subway and added light rail in the form of streetcars.

Most of the improvements are very positive. Bus stops no longer take up space, and instead are just a sign marker that you can place. Bus terminals do take up space, but this is realistic. Streetcars run only along high-density roadways; you can’t place them seperate from the roadway. Unlike previous versions of SimCity, the new installation doesn’t seem to allow for much more than a passenger train station and a freight station for heavy rail accommodations. The heavy rail seems to be used primarily for inter-city travel. Subways have been removed entirely.

I’m not really that bummed about losing subways when it comes to gameplay; they never quite worked right, at least for me, and they never justified the cost and effort of installing them in your already bustling city. Maxis likely removed the subways from SimCity so that the underground view (which previously included water pipe placement, also removed) could be removed entirely.

But removing subways as an option still doesn’t make sense. It has the obvious impact of removing a huge transit option that has a tiny footprint and no impact on vehicle traffic. Unfortunately, subways are such an integral part of so many modern cities–New York City, Boston, London, Washington D.C, San Francisco, Chicago… the list goes on and on. It’s hard to create a true modern metropolis without an option to make a subway. The entire realm of intra-city public transit seems to have moved to buses, which, again, is road-based.

Don’t expect any of your Sims to be living above a Boloco in SimCity.

6. Zoning
There is one more issue I’ve had with SimCity since I started thinking more about actual city layout is zoning. It’s not the fact that zones evolve on their own–I like that, and I think it makes sense–it’s the ability to make mixed-use zones.  That is, a mix of residential and commercial, with first floor retail or offices and apartments above. You may also see first floor retail with offices above, but both of these fall under “commercial” in SimCity, so I guess that’s fine. But why not allow for the zoning of a mixed-use development? It would be advantageous to build such zones, because you supply shopping to residents who live on the same tile of land, but not too many of these zones, since not everyone will want to live above a fish market. Maybe the value of that property increases with density; that is, as higher-wealth businesses move in, higher-wealth Sims do too. You wouldn’t be able to use this zone everywhere if you want dense commercial buildings to move in, since all the commercial has to be on the ground floor. A mixed-use zone would also help reduce traffic because Sims aren’t driving to the store all the time. Maybe it wasn’t included because it’d be too useful, or because it relies too much on a Sim’s “preference” on where s/he wants to live. I just hope it wasn’t omitted because of an oversight, or because it would have been too difficult.

All that said, I can’t wait for March 5th. I’m going to waste way more time on SimCity than I probably should. These omissions, errors and oversights won’t dramatically hinder my enjoyment of the game. These are just my gripes with SimCity as a planning professional. I have only played the beta, so I may have missed on some of these issues; I’ll try and edit if I did.

If you’re going to be buying SimCity, let me know and maybe we can join up on a region!

The MBTA Etiquette Handbook

I was tweeting back and forth (well, one tweet back, one tweet forth was the extent of it, really) with a high school acquaintance turned train friend recently. You know, the person who’s on your train every morning that you talk to every so often. The short conversation resulted in an idea that I immediately thought would make a good blog post: MBTA Etiquette.

Sure, normal etiquette rules apply in most situations on the MBTA, as they do in the rest of everyday life, but there are a few unwritten rules (some that maybe only I know about) that need to be plastered onto the walls of MBTA stations and subway cars.

On the commuter rail:

The classic 2-seater/3-seater setup in the MBTA commuter rail.

I realize that many MBTA users never ride the commuter rail, so this won’t apply to them. However, given that long commuter rail rides can be over 60 minutes long, etiquette is of utmost importance.

1. Finding a seat

If you’re the guy who jumps on the rush-hour train just as the train is leaving North Station, chances are that finding a seat is particularly difficult. There is a correct way to finding an empty seat.

Use your judgement. If it seems like the train is packed, then there will be limited options available. However, if you’re getting on mid-trip, you may find a situation where there are some options. In general, all seats should be taken in the following order (I’m assuming we’re dealing with a classic 3-seat/2 seat setup, and that you’re alone):

A. Inside (window) seat, either row
If possible, take the inside seat. This makes it easier for someone to sit beside you if necessary. Don’t sit on the aisle if no one is sitting with you, and don’t put your stuff all over your seat, making it awkward for other passengers to sit down. Everyone likes a private seat but that’s not always realistic. Whether you take the inside seat on the 2-seater side or the 3-seater side is your preference. Generally, the side facing away from the sun is best, as the glare can be brutal. I tend to favor the 3-seater side since you’re less likely to have someone sitting directly next to you.

B. Outside (aisle) seat on the 3-seater side
If you’re on a train with two 2-seat rows, disregard this. Otherwise, it’s best to take the aisle seat on the 3-seater side if all the inside seats are taken. This provides the maximum buffer zone between you and the person you’re sitting with. The commuter rail seats aren’t spaced enough for tall males (read: me) to sit comfortably without sitting on the diagonal a little bit, so do everyone a favor and acknowledge this.

C. Outside (aisle) seat on the 2-seater side

Okay, we’re running out of room here. The next natural step is the aisle seat on the 2-seater side, for obvious reasons: It’s easier to access than the middle seat on the 3-seater side, and you’re ruining one person’s trip and not two.

D. Stand

Honestly, I’d rather stand than sit in the middle of the 3-seater side, but that’s just me. Disregard if you wish (especially if you’re not overweight or tall). Sometimes not an option depending on the conductor.

E. Middle seat of the 3-seater side

Only if you must. Use judgement here, if you’re larger than the person in the aisle seat, ask if that person can slide over. If they’re larger than you, ask for the middle seat. Make it the least uncomfortable situation possible.

F. Special Circumstances

If a group of people come in and want a 2-seater to themselves, and there’s an aisle seat in the 3-seater side available, give it to them. Same goes for the 3-seater side. It is also acceptable to offer the window seat to a new passenger if you’re getting off within the next 1-2 stops. Finally, I’ll bend the rules somewhat if you have the opportunity to sit in a recently-renovated seat, that actually has, you know, padding.

2. Changing your Seat

Changing seats is encouraged as the train empties out when traveling outbound. As a general rule of thumb, it is the responsibility of the person sitting on the aisle to move to an empty set of seats, if available. It is also acceptable for someone sitting on the aisle in the 2-seater row to move to the aisle of a 3-seater row, assuming no one is sitting in the middle seat at that point. The goal is to minimize the number of strangers sitting directly next to one another.

3. Conversation

Conversation is generally discouraged. People use the train to get work done, read, listen to music, play games on their phone, nap, etc. Always err on the assumption that whoever is sitting next to you does not want to talk to you. This is not necessarily because of noise (although that is a factor), but because you could ruin someone’s train ride by talking to them the whole time. If you must make small talk, learn to take a hint and shut it after a few seconds of silence.

According to female sources, it is extremely uncool to chat up the cute girl that you “happened” to sit next to for the entire ride. Don’t hold people hostage because they’re being polite.

4. Personal space

The seating priority list is primarily to conserve as much personal space as possible. As I mentioned, larger people don’t fit in the seats as well as smaller people. Don’t exacerbate the situation by disobeying the seating priority list, by putting your stuff on the seat, shifting around too much, etc. Larger individuals should try not to encroach on the seat of the person next to him/her.

On the bus:

The onset of live tracking apps such as “Catch the Bus” and the Google Maps app have really opened up a new world for me in terms of public transit. I took the bus about three times in college, and about 300 times since I graduated under two years ago. The bus is really a different animal when it comes to public transit. A few tips to consider:

1. Where to sit

If possible, take this seat.

If the bus is empty enough that you’re able to sit, do so wherever you want, but remember to always try to minimize the number of people sitting directy next to one another. Most MBTA buses have five seats at the very back, facing the front, and three seats facing one another directly in front of the back seats. In the case of the 5-seater in the back, always try to sit on either extreme (the “window” seats) or directly in the middle. Only take the window seats if you’ll be on the bus for a while, since people will need to stand to let you out if there is anyone next to you. The 2nd priority is the middle of the five seats, since you’ll have a one-seat buffer between you and the window seats. As is the case with all three-seaters, do not take the middle seat unless absolutely necessary.

2. Where to stand

If you need to stand, it really depends on how packed the bus is, and if it’ll get more packed at the next few stops. Consider your experience and make a judgement. If you anticipate the bus will get full, stand in the back of the bus if you’re not getting off for a few stops. If you don’t think the bus will get much more full, stand wherever you want, but be prepared to push back if necessary. If you’re getting off at the next stop, stand as close to the back door as possible.

3. Getting off the bus

Unless you’re sitting or standing at the very front of the bus, always get off using the back door. People will be looking to get on using the front door. Riders that exit through the front door slow things down. I once saw a woman that was outraged that people tried to board the bus 5 seconds after the doors opened; she was walking over to the front door to get off. She was wrong. Get out at the back door unless you’re eagerly waiting to get off at the front as soon as the doors open. I’ll let you slide if you’re in the front in a very packed bus, but then again, if you’re at the front, you were probably close enough to walk anyway.

If you get off at a minor stop, when it’s unlikely anyone else will be getting on or off, and there is a major stop nearby, where it’s more likely people will be getting on and off, be a sport and just get off at the major stop. Don’t delay everyone for 15 seconds because you need to get off at your own stop, 500 feet from a major intersection. Go for a walk, it’s good for you. Obviously more acceptable in inclement weather.

4. Volume

Look, I’m on the bus. Therefore, I’m not having the best day. Assume I hate your music. Playing music from a boombox, or playing it so loud that I can hear it through your noise-cancelling headphones, is unacceptable. I really shouldn’t need to write this.

5. Courtesy

The bus driver is probably the unsung hero of the MBTA world. A commuter rail conductor doesn’t have to drive the train, and subway conductors don’t really have to deal with customers. Bus drivers are responsible for making sure people get on and pay, making sure no one gets on through the back door, making sure people move back if it’s standing room only, etc. They also have the most stressful job; they actually have to drive, on a road, in BOSTON, in a bus. It’s not easy. Treat them with respect.

On the subway 

1. Seating

Because of the nature of the cars, seating is much more of a free-for-all on rapid-transit lines (Red, Blue, Orange) than buses, commuter rail trains, or the Green Line. On rapid transit lines, you should remember to sit in a seat that minimizes the number of people sitting directly next to one another. If the train is empty, you should sit on an edge seat or a seat two seats over, or a seat two seats over from that, etc. Sitting next to one of these seats when it is not necessary may lead to fewer-than optimal available seats without anyone sitting next to someone. For example, if there are seven seats in a section, you can sit in seats 1, 3, 5, or 7. If someone’s sitting in seat 6, this means the maximum number of people sitting in that section without anyone sitting next to someone is 3 (people sitting in seat 2, 4, and 6). In this situation, sit in seat 1 or seat 7, if necessary, since this way you’re only inconveniencing one person.

The green line takes on similar rules to the bus, except there are more single seats on the Green Line. If you’re alone and this seat is available, take it.

And, for god’s sake, give up your seat next to the door (or any seat for that matter) for a disabled, elderly, or pregnant person. Another thing I shouldn’t have to write.

2. Standing

Sometimes you gotta stand. When standing, use the space available, but be mindful of others. Don’t lean on the pole you’re holding onto, since that means no one else can use it.

Never use the hanging loops that hang from the horizontal bars; they suck and they will not keep you steady once the train moves or stops.

Pay attention and anticipate sudden stops and go’s. No one likes that person that repeatedly gets thrown into other people because the train stopped.

3. The doors

Do not stand directly next to the doors if possible. This makes it difficult for people to exit/enter the train. If you are standing at the door because the train is too full, get off the train and let people leave. You will be the first one back on and you’ll be able to get a better spot to stand, or maybe even a seat. The train won’t leave without you if you get off for three seconds.

It is acceptable for people to move closer to the doors while the train is moving only if they are getting off at the next stop. People pile into the train once it seems like no one else is exiting (often once the doors open), so it’s actually good to get close to the door to keep things moving. However, don’t do this in an overly crowded train; you’ll annoy people by pushing past them when there’s no place to go.

Beware of your bag. The conductors get in trouble, to the tune of unpaid suspensions,  if they close the door on your backpack because it was sticking out. Treat it as an extension of your body and get it inside the doors. And if the door closes and crunches your bag, take responsibility.

This needs to be posted at every escalator ever.

4. Escalators

This cannot be stressed enough. In peak conditions, especially rush hour, do NOT block the entire escalator. Stand on the right if you must stand so that people in a rush can walk to your left. The escalator is meant to speed things up, don’t slow things down for everyone.

5. Performers

This won’t apply to nearly anyone reading, but here it goes anyway. I tend to dislike performers in the subway. Chances are, I’m listening to music or a podcast. However, I will admit that there is an aesthetic/cultural plus to street performers and subway performers. You don’t find people playing violin in public spaces in suburbs. However, it does get annoying when you quite literally can’t escape the sounds you’re making. So here are some rules for subway performers:

A. No amplifiers

Chances are, you don’t need one. The subway can be pretty quiet when no trains are entering/exiting the station, and when they are entering and exiting, it’s hard to hear anything. Amplifiers aren’t necessary most of the time. If your instrument requires one, keep it to a reasonable level. If i’m not interested in your music, I’m not going to tip you, regardless of its volume. I’m certainly not going to walk the length of the platform to tip you if I can hear you from 80 yards away.

B. Keep it classical

Classical music is generally unoffensive. It’s relaxing and pleasing to the ear. It’s exactly what I want to hear in a subway station, when I’m tired in the morning or stressed going home at night. Folksy music with some singing is also OK in some aspects, just don’t go too crazy. The vocals, if included, should NOT be the focal point. And again, if vocals are included, no microphones.

C. Nothing obnoxious

I know this is subjective, and it kind of goes along with “Keep it classical”, but please, don’t play the music from your native country if we don’t already listen to it here. I don’t want to sound like a xenophobe, but chances are, people don’t want to hear this new kind of music before or after their workday.

D. No cliche covers!

If I hear Dirty Water one more time on the subway or in Downtown Crossing, I’m going to vomit. Seriously, you’re a musician, play something interesting.

Anything else? 

If I missed anything, be sure to let me know!

Projecting the Super Bowl XLVII matchup

This is my 3rd favorite week of football of the year. Last week was my 2nd favorite–a full slate of playoff games, with the teams that got the bye the previous week playing instead of the not-so-deserving wild card teams. The best week is obviously the runup to the Super Bowl. But Championship Week comes in very close to both of those. The best 4 teams in football (theoretically), playing on the home turf of the more deserving teams (unlike the Super Bowl), with the possibility of epic weather (unfortunately that won’t happen this year).

It’s also a favorite of mine just to think of what the matchups could be, to think of the storylines the networks will try to cook up, and the color schemes of the uniforms we may see on Super Bowl Sunday.

Of course, it helps that the Patriots will be playing on this weekend for the 7th time in 12 years, which is hilarious considering Jets fans were bragging that they made it to the AFC Championship Game 2 years in a row just a few years ago.

WIthout further ado, here are the possible matchups, storylines, uniform matchups, and who I think will win this weekend.

1. Patriots/Falcons

I chose this one first because it features the two higher-ranked teams that are left. I don’t think many people would consider this the most compelling Super Bowl matchup, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it wouldn’t be a great Super Bowl (remember Steelers/Cardinals a few years back).

Possible Storylines:

There aren’t a ton. We’ll get a lot about each individual team, for example, it would mean a lot to Brady/Belichick’s legacy to get a fourth Super Bowl, especially after the Spygate thing. It would also elevate Matt Ryan to the next level of NFL QB’s, should he get a ring. It would also be mentioned a few times that Matt Ryan went to BC, which really isn’t as big a storyline as it’ll be played out to be.

Uniform Matchup:

This uniform matchup would feature the Patriots’ white jersey that I prefer over their blue ones, and the Falcons’ red jersey that I really liked in High School. I still think it’s one of the better ‘modern’ uniforms. That said, it’s not a classic matchup by any means. There aren’t a lot of great unis in the AFC, so they tend to be the limiting factor, and it’ll prove to be the case if this Super Bowl happens.

2. Patriots/49ers

This is the only potential rematch of all the Super Bowl possibilities. The 49ers came to Foxborough and beat the Patriots, which was their only loss since Week 6, when they lost in Seattle.

Possible Storylines

I wrote about this matchup last year. This matchup would give Tom Brady the opportunity to tie his boyhood hero Joe Montana in Super Bow

The best possible uniform matchup?

l wins and Super Bowl MVP’s against the team he rooted for as a kid. The rematch story might get some play; there’d be a lot of replays of the 49ers’ 41-34 win in Foxborough about a month ago.

Uniform Matchup:

This matchup is actually quite good; it features arguably the best uniform in football (the 49ers’ home reds) vs. the better of the two Patriots’ jerseys (IMHO).

3. Ravens/Falcons

This matchup, aside from both teams having birds for mascots, don’t have much in terms of history or storylines. But I’m sure ESPN would think of something.

Possible Storylines:

There isn’t much here… the coverage would most likely focus on individual stories, such as Torrey Smith losing his brother this year, Joe Flacco’s emergence (we’re assuming he beats New England here), Matt Ryan getting the monkey off his back, and, oh yeah, nonstop coverage of Ray freaking Lewis. 

Uniform Matchup:

I don’t find the Ravens’ away uniforms to be anything worth gawking over… The purple home unis are unique enough, but the white are just kind of 90′s looking. Nothing really great about them. Each team has black as a primary color, so it’d possibly be one of the more black-centric uni matchups in recent Super Bowl memory.

4. Ravens/49ers

This matchup would probably be the matchup of the two most defensive-minded teams remaining.

Possible Storylines:

Harbowl. Jim Harbaugh, the coach of the 49ers, and John Harbaugh, the coach of the Ravens, would face off for the 2nd time, only this time, it’s the Super Bowl. Networks will remind you again and again of the fact that the two coaches are brothers. It’d possibly the most overhyped post-game handshake since Eli/Peyton I or any Belichick/Mangini game. Also, nonstop coverage of Ray Lewis.

Uniform Matchup:

Not anything to write home about, but any game with the 49ers home unis is a good matchup.

Prediction:

I’m 2-6 so far in the postseason, but that’s after an 0-6 start, so I’m on a roll!

The Falcons will find a way to stop the dynamic offense of the 49ers and Colin Kaepernick. Falcons 27, 49ers 19. 

The Patriots will jump out to a first-half lead, but the Ravens will take a 3-point lead late in the 4th quarter. Stephen Gostkowski, with a chance to bring the game into overtime, will miss a 39-yard field goal, wide left, as time expires. Ravens 30, Patriots 27.

 

 

Central Square: The Whitman's Sampler of Bike Lane Abuse

Reblogged from Pug Velo:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Brilliant.