rbrome

2 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Slightly off topic, but does the R211 facelift gonna be for the next few car gens? It seems like the dark-navy blue and yellow are the new colors of the subway fleet, and while that's fine on the outside, I'm not a big fan of the R211's from what I've seen; the R143, R160, and R179 feel much airer and lighter yet have held up pretty well.

I agree. I'm not a fan of the blue-yellow and not convinced it will hold up well over the years. The more stainless steel, the better, if you ask me. I want it to look bright and clean for as long as possible. 

14 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I’ve been thinking the same thing. There hasn’t been much update in regards to the R211 fleet for a while yet it’s like some keep beating a dead horse with the same talk about potential assignments. At this point it is best to wait and see what happens because realistic y’all keep going in circles. Let’s not fill up 5 more pages of this thread with speculated fleet assignments when the R211 haven’t even started in service testing yet. 

Thank you! THIS x 1000! There are plenty of other threads to discuss assignments, something I personally care nothing about. Can we please keep this thread focused on the actual rolling stock? 

7 hours ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Did WFH put a permanent dent in ridership?

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): 

2 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

They got the nerve to find lame excuses (like "ridership is low", which is not true) to raise fares and cut service.

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

On 11/28/2022 at 7:46 AM, RandomRider0101 said:

Well technically it was both. The poles were made yellow so it would be easier for the visually impaired to see them; and this was started under Andrew Cuomo.

From what I learned, the yellow poles were harder to maintain due to the paint chipping. As someone said before, painting the trains cost money; this applies to the inside of the train as well. For these reasons, MTA has decided to stick with the traditional stainless steel poles; it is more cost-effective.

Me personally, I thought it was nice to see some more color and something a little different. Not a big fan of the exterior wraps though; in my opinion, that should be the next thing that's changed. I think everything else is fine though.

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. 

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

According to this source, the R211s revenue service is expected by spring 2023..

 

https://www.railjournal.com/passenger/metros/new-york-exercises-option-with-kawasaki-for-640-metro-cars/?fbclid=IwAR0H5kbTzQ_wPPwVgxGdWFcQM6w3GrtQpUVFew0kVRD6L1nG-jXhLn4kObU

 

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....

3 hours ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Then why not just put in a new fixed block signaling system?

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? 

On 8/12/2022 at 3:06 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

So am I understanding this correctly? You want an ADA gate AND an emergency exit as well, in addition to redesigning the turnstiles? I'm just wondering how farebeating would be deterred with those wide gates for ADA access? What would be the deterrent from people still using those?

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? 

13 minutes ago, Lil 57 said:

I remember the times when the gates were used for emergency/accessibility only and would sound a alarm when you pushed it. IMO a wider fare gate should be constructed for wheelchair/strollers/luggage/etc...  ...

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. 

14 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

I can't believe they are seriously considering this, this seems like a pipe dream at best. 

472 stations with most having multiple entrances, who would monitor all these metal detectors at these various stations?

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. 

7 hours ago, BenTheMiner said:

... Still, I'd rather be able to run from someone.

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

On 4/12/2022 at 2:11 PM, BreeddekalbL said:

Are we sure we still want to do gangways after what happened today?

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.