rbrome

Definitely. It's the same across most of the world.

On the busses, they have technology now that actually counts people instead of just fares. Fare evasion is around 30% on busses right now. I assume ridership numbers include fare-beaters, but I'm not certain. For the subways, the MTA teamed up with Columbia University to devise an accurate way to determine the evasion rate. Their methodology seems solid to me. They recently determined that around 15% of people don't pay the subway fare. I'm less sure if ridership numbers try to estimate fare-beaters here, although even if you add that 15%, ridership is still well below pre-pandemic levels, which makes sense given how empty most offices are still. Source: this Twitter thread (the methodology is described in the next tweet):

Huh? We're only at about 2/3 the ridership compared to pre-pandemic. Ridership is low. And obviously that affects revenue. https://new.mta.info/coronavirus/ridership

My understanding was that Cuomo wanted more "state branding" in the form of more blue and yellow. I found most of the results to be tacky. But I have also heard the accessibility angle for the poles. Which makes it interesting that they dropped it; those types of things usually become permanent policy. I guess this one is optional. In terms of maintainability, though, yes, the advantages of bare stainless are obvious. And of course the MTA should be very focused on that.

I am unreasonably relieved that the poles and grab-bars will not be "Coumo Yellow" as in the mock-ups. It added so much visual clutter, looked less classy, less clean, and did not seem like it would age well. Stainless steel is the way to go, and I'm glad the MTA agreed with my comment during the mock-up feedback process.

Huh. Curious that they didn't come with the gangway part attached at all.

The "source" in this case is an MTA press release: https://new.mta.info/press-release/mta-votes-order-hundreds-more-cutting-edge-r211-subway-cars So... is this for open-gangway cars, or is that still to be decided? I assume and hope that open-gangway is still on the table for this option batch....

Because that is ancient. inefficient, inflexible technology. All new metro signal systems are CBTC. When done correctly, it's easier to maintain and more reliable.

Thanks. It just seemed like it was coming sooner, given that the MTA was teasing it on social media.

Does anyone know when this might enter revenue testing?

It is not difficult to design a wide fare gate (for ADA, strollers, and luggage) that is difficult to jump. Barcelona is a great example. Emergency exits should be solely for emergencies. The turnstile redesign and wide (ADA) fare gate are part of the same thing. We need new turnstiles that are more difficult to jump, and that should simply include one wide one in each set. Paris has even figured out a way to retrofit anti-jumping barriers on standard turnstiles like NYC's. It doesn't have to be a complete rip-and-replacement.

For the subways, I see this mainly as a design problem. Therefore I essentially agree with the OP's first two suggestions. The current turnstile design makes it way too easy to jump or duck under. There are plenty of more modern designs that make it vastly more physically difficult. The situation with the emergency exit gates just makes the problem worse. It's too easy to use them to beat the fare. Using them as makeshift ADA access was always a terrible idea. The solution is simple and it's what every other system in the world does: every set of turnstiles needs one wide gate for ADA access, (and strollers and luggage, etc.) Then we can restore the emergency exits to their proper function, with loud alarms and everything. Honestly, the current fare control design — all of it — invites fare-beating. I think it's so easy that some people feel like suckers if they do pay. It definitely seems like some people think it's rude NOT to hold the exit gate open for others to not pay. That's crazy, but it's a design problem that can be fixed. It's a solved problem, we just need to get over the NY exceptionalism crap and look at what other systems are doing.

A certain percentage of the workforce will never return to the office. It remains to be seen what percentage, but a lot of people are working from home and finding that it's working quite well for them and their employers. So I don't think anyone should plan for a return to "100%" levels any time soon. At the same time, service cuts lead to even lower ridership, which starts you down a death spiral. I think the MTA does need all the new cars, and the state simply needs to cough up more funding. I don't see any good alternatives.

The MTA teased the R211s on Instagram today: https://www.instagram.com/p/CfoqyoILoMX/?hl=en

The root of it is that, yes, the whole system needs it. The very piecemeal approach the MTA is taking is completely unlike how any other city has (or would) do this kind of upgrade. I get why... it's very expensive for them (some would say uniquely expensive). So they can't just do it all at once. A normal city would do it line-by-line, but one whole line at a time. But here, interlining is what makes CBTC much more urgent on just certain sections of most lines. My question is: isn't there a cost, in terms of operational efficiency, to having so many transition points between CBTC and non-CBTC signalling? What is the procedure, anyway? Does it slow things down at all when they do whatever they do to switch the train into, or out of, CBTC mode?

This. Making the emergency exits double as the "wide gates" was a mistake. Every entrance should have at least one proper wide turnstile. Like every other system in the world. These solutions are not difficult. And the emergency exits should go back to being actual emergency exits only, with a really unpleasant alarm.

A new turnstile design doesn't have to be impenetrable, it just has to be more difficult to jump or duck. The current ones are SO easy for almost anyone to get past, that some people see it as an invitation. You don't even look silly doing it. In some cases, some people even think you "look cool" jumping it. And when it's so easy, some people think "Why not? I'd be stupid not to!" If you make it so that you have to crawl on your belly to duck it, or be an Olympic jumper to get over it, that's going to deter enough people to make a serious difference. A lot of people can pay the fare, they just don't feel like it when it's so easy not to. That's a design problem, and it's a really easy one to solve.

Here's a good example of the kind of faregate the MTA should be looking at: https://www.barcelona.cat/infobarcelona/en/tema/mobility-and-transport/regaining-public-transport-safely_953182.html

A faregate redesign is long overdue. Visit almost any other system in the world and you'll find proven designs that are much more difficult to jump and are accessible for those in wheelchairs or with luggage. These things are not difficult, the MTA just needs to open its eyes to the world. To address the thread topic more directly, the "people chopper" design is not accessible, nor is it necessary. It would be more than adequate to simply use one of the many designs that comes up to chest level (instead of waist level), and extends down far enough that you can't just duck under it.

Since people are mentioning PSDs, I want to point out that at least PSDs provide a benefit at every station where they're installed. If you install PSDs at 50% of stations, then at least you've addressed something close to 50% of the risk. But metal detectors don't work that way. Someone with seriously ill intent can choose which station to use. So installing metal detectors at 50% of stations only addresses perhaps 5% of the risk (at best). And we all know they'll never get close to 50%, much less the 100% that could actually be effective. So it's all a massive waste of money from day one. I will say that I have used a system that has metal detectors system-wide. When I visited Beijing in 2015, they had them (and x-ray bag scanners) at every station. But it's a very different system; it's much newer, so all the stations are sized like our Second Ave line. There was space for it. And most entrances are along wide boulevards with even wider sidewalks, so there was room for queueing outside. And during peak hours... boy was there queueing! It really slowed things down. I don't think New Yorkers would stand for that. It would absolutely put a dent in ridership (the last thing we need right now), sending the MTA into another financial death spiral. Now in Beijing, they used the older style. Supposedly the MTA is considering new ones that are designed to be better and faster. But I have used those — they have them at many of the local hospitals — and they did not seem particularly fast/efficient to me.

Exactly. These things need to be manned. You're really going to put a manned security station at... what... 2,000 entrances?! Get out of here. And if you just do a dozen high-profile stations, that's pure security theater. Obviously anyone actually planning something bad will simply board at a different station. What a pointless waste of our money just so politicians can appear to be "doing something" about an issue.

Exactly. Given the choice, I'll take the larger space with more options.

Absolutely! People would have had somewhere to run to instead of everyone trapped in that one car. I've read reports about people desperately trying to get to other cars, but the end doors were locked. Open gangways would have helped. If I have to be trapped in a space with an active shooter, I'll take the space that's 5x larger with places to run to, thank you very much. That's a no-brainer for me.

Getting a good signal into all (or even most) of the tunnels is going to be a massive project. Again, I think we would have heard something by now if that was coming soon. This is true in many cases, but it's not necessarily true underground. Wi-Fi is, by design, relatively short-distance, and therefore your device never has to use very much power to reach the network. But cellular signal sometimes have to travel miles (no so much in the city, but still, further than Wi-Fi.) It uses more power to generate a signal that will go that far. But to save battery life, cellular devices are constantly adjusting their power output to be just enough to reach as far as they need to. So when you're underground in the subway, the cellular signal is only going the same distance as a Wi-Fi signal, and therefore should be using a roughly similar amount of power. I am always surprised by how many people I see doing this, which is to say a number higher than zero. But still, it's not very many people, especially compared to the masses on their phones the whole trip. I'm not sure it's enough people for the MTA to make an effort to cater specifically to that group. But also... This is a very good point, and an important issue of equity. But whenever the MTA does bring wireless to the tunnels, I expect them to do it the same way they did for the stations: both cellular and Wi-Fi. If you're going to the (massive, costly) effort to run fiber to hundreds (thousands?) of physical antenna locations, you might as well offer both technologies, considering the relatively small incremental expense. The MTA and Transit Wireless were smart to do that with the stations, and I can't think of any reason they would do the tunnels any differently.

Supposedly, although I'm not sure what the point is. The train still needs some way to connect to the Internet, which requires some kind of WiFi or cellular in the tunnels. That would be a massive separate project that we would have heard more about if it were happening any time soon. The MTA should do that, but when they do, you'd be able to get service directly with your phone without connecting to the train. Honestly I see zero point in putting any kind of WiFi in the trains themselves; it's completely unnecessary and only complicates things. It's the tunnels where we need wireless service, not the trains. And forget about Wi-Fi; cellular is easier for most people because it just works, instead of having to seek out and connect to a specific Wi-Fi -network (and risk connecting to a fake one that's trying to steal your info.)