Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
pjbr40

Subway Platform Discussion

Recommended Posts

I think we should have new sticky thread since it ongoing problems. I think the administrator should combine all the topic in past into one topic thread.

 

here the latest incident

 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/01/22/man-killed-by-subway-in-times-square/

 

The (MTA) is doing it best it can to avoid these problems, but they are running out of options, so it time to build those partition or platform screen door. Sorry folk it had to be done to prevent death and help the society of today people. Safety always come first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't think there has been an increase in passengers falling onto the tracks. 

 

What happened was, there was a murder - which is substantially more rare - and it was brought to light by a dramatic (and possibly criminally negligent  photo of a doomed man on the front page. 

 

Shortly thereafter, there was another murder caused by a subway-platform pusher. 

 

What this has done is drawn media attention to the 12-9 issue, and there far more coverage of the issue. 

 

According to statistics, there are generally about 3 people struck by trains in the NYCT each week, with one of them being fatal. There is more coverage of the issue right now, but the issue is not bigger than it ever has been. 

 

Platform Screen Doors, are - at best - a long term solution. At worst, they are unweildly, expensive, impractical and would cause more problems of their own. 

 

There are 30 sets doors on each side of an IRT train (3 per car in a 10 car train)... 32 on 8-Car BMT/IND trains and 40 on 10-car IND trains. Lets play the lower number for now: 30 doors * 2 platforms * 468 stations. That's a whopping 28,080 new pieces of moving, mechanical equipment subject to breakdown in every station. Factor in many stations have more than two platforms (express service) and the number starts creeping toward 50,000. 

 

Nevermind the installation costs, the maintenance costs, and the implications of downtime on this equipment - The time required to install it would be mindboggling. 

 

I think this situation calls for outside the box thinking. 

 

As far as the suicides go: I think the best bet is putting call boxes, similar as they have next to bridges, that link to a suicide hotline in stations or near platforms. Screen doors, even if foolproof, would not prevent the suicides committed in subway stations - they would only prevent that means of suicide. The victim, if really determined to end it, would simply find another means. A simple "life is worth living" sign and call box might go further than screen doors could. 

 

In terms of accidents, and murders, there are any number of systems which could be developed to alert a train operator to a person on the tracks. cameras could use image recognition, optical sensors, even a simple capacitance wire could detect the possible presence of a person, and illuminate a simple flashing orange lamp, similar to the ones used by work crews, at the entrance portal to the station. The lamp would have the train operator enter the station as if he were flagged by a work crew, horn blowing, 10mph. There might be some false positives, however this would be far better than all trains entering all stations in this manner, and would slow down service far less than the inevitable platform screen door problems would. (the system would also light a green lamp or something similar clear of the station so the operator resumed normal operation)

 

These systems could be installed much faster, and for a fraction of the cost of screen doors, and would have a measurable effect on reducing fatalities and injuries - and that's all you can hope for, really.

 

I don't mean to minimize human life - but at 50 deaths in 1,900,000,000 yearly trips - or .000002%, roughly, this is not a numerically large problem. Steps can be taken to make it even safer, but billions of dollars on platform screen doors should not be the first step. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as the suicides go: I think the best bet is putting call boxes, similar as they have next to bridges, that link to a suicide hotline in stations or near platforms. Screen doors, even if foolproof, would not prevent the suicides committed in subway stations - they would only prevent that means of suicide. The victim, if really determined to end it, would simply find another means. A simple "life is worth living" sign and call box might go further than screen doors could. 

 

Toronto has had these installed in its stations - I haven't taken a look at the statistics for people run over since it was implemented in 2011 (because the TTC doesn't want to share that info) but it's been eons since I last heard of a subway fatality slowing down service.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is mainly because people stand near the edge... At some stations the walls should be pushed back for safety reasons (for example Grand Street, some local stations on 4th Ave...)

Edited by Quill Depot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PSDs work much better in an environment of CBTC-based ATO

so do it first. Even though MTA couldn't install PSD into every stations by some reasons, the installation of CBTC system will never be a waste.

 

Also, some people doubt about the feasibility of installing PSD(or ever half height APG) in old stations, what about some new stations :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PSDs work much better in an environment of CBTC-based ATO

so do it first. Even though MTA couldn't install PSD into every stations by some reasons, the installation of CBTC system will never be a waste.

 

Also, some people doubt about the feasibility of installing PSD(or ever half height APG) in old stations, what about some new stations :unsure:

 

New stations are another story - but remember that, say in the example of SAS, you're still only talking about a portion of a line. If that requires retrofitting ALL cars that might POSSIBLY run on that section of track to be compatible with the PSD's, there's still a prohibitive cost. I don't doubt the feasibility - I doubt the cost, and the cuts that would need to be made to satisfy that cost, being palatable. 

 

But to distill my point further:

Platform screen doors are the nuclear weapon of this war: Expensive, ugly, and with serious collateral ramifications. If the problem can be mitigated with some diplomacy (like public awareness campaigns) and some countermeasures (Intercoms, hotlines, or even person-on-track warning lights), then there may be no need to go the nuclear option. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
New stations are another story - but remember that, say in the example of SAS, you're still only talking about a portion of a line. If that requires retrofitting ALL cars that might POSSIBLY run on that section of track to be compatible with the PSD's, there's still a prohibitive cost.

 

Come on. $1 million per station, is not that much, compared to how much is lost by slowing down trains.

 

For SAS, that's $8 million max. For the 7 train extension, it should cost no more than $4 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAS is probably not the place to start- I think ATO lines make more sense.

 

Test PSDs on the L and 7. High use lines which could use the added benefit. Grand Central on the 7 and Union Square on the L would be ideal test locations in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on. $1 million per station, is not that much, compared to how much is lost by slowing down trains.

 

For SAS, that's $8 million max. For the 7 train extension, it should cost no more than $4 million.

 

The 7 train extension is only 1 station. You're already $3 Million overbudget. 

 

I kid. But seriously: Sure, $1Mil per station is fairly reasonable - but that is assuming no retrofits need to be done to the trains. If every train needs sensors or servos or transponders or some such nonsense added to every car on the line to serve the one station with PSD's, now the costs have started to balloon. 

 

My point is that less costly, easier to implement solutions should be tried before screen doors are resorted to. 

 

SAS is probably not the place to start- I think ATO lines make more sense.

 

Test PSDs on the L and 7. High use lines which could use the added benefit. Grand Central on the 7 and Union Square on the L would be ideal test locations in my opinion.

 

I hardly think the 2nd and 4th most used stations are the place to test a new technology. The first time the screen doors fail to open during rush hour there will be utter chaos. 

 

If the MTA is really hell bent on testing these doors, put them on one of the lower used stations on the L. Test the technology first - Yes, you want to see results on the statistics front, but before you launch this grand new system, you're going to want to beta test it with something that won't rip a limb off the subway system if it fails. 

 

I'm going to keep beating this point: They should probably test easier to implement, less failure prone, less operationally-critical systems first, like the ones I have iterated above and won't repeat ad nauseam. These can be tested in busy stations with little impact to service in the event of an issue, and real metrics on their effectiveness can be seen over time. 

 

 

Before overhauling the infrastructure, operational rules, rolling stock, and soul of the subway system, we, and the MTA should suggest and implement minor changes which can make a big difference. Have they tried emblazoning bold red "STAND BACK" lettering on the platform edge? Maybe it wouldn't make a difference - maybe it would make a huge difference. It would cost all of $1000, why not pick a station and try it. 

 

Arguing for platform screen doors at this point is: picking a solution, and then fudging the data to support it, which is the same backwards methodology the MTA is accused of and then lambasted for. I don't defend the MTA if they do it, and nor will I support it from the armchair civil engineers like myself. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we already had a topic discussing this, about 10 pages worth :P

 

Yes yes, of course. 

 

For the record, I was trying to steer the conversation toward suggestion of options OTHER than the screen doors which seem to be such a favorite  <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand  the company that designed and  installed the PSD system in Korea made a proposal to the NYCT and the MTA where they say that they can design, install, and pay for the system without any funding from the city or state.  Why isn't anyone following up on this?  That seems like an idea that we can look into. Lets get a few  Demo stations and test the concept.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The technology is impractical at the moment because not all trains are of equal sizes. You have tracks with trains of 8 car 60' trains sharing with 8 cars that are 75 feet and 10 cars at 60 feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SAS is probably not the place to start- I think ATO lines make more sense.

 

Test PSDs on the L and 7. High use lines which could use the added benefit. Grand Central on the 7 and Union Square on the L would be ideal test locations in my opinion.

 

Don't worry, there' no plans for platform screen doors on the SAS as of 2013. But they will do it on the (7) extension in Manhattan. SAS wont get CBTC since by approximately 2016 they will start installing CBTC on the Queens Blvd Line which takes precedence on priority over the SAS for obvious reasons as it is the second most heavily line next to the Lex IRT as per MTA. My opinions on that is exactly what the MTA thinks because they definitely know what they are doing as far as capital construction projects nowadays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry, there' no plans for platform screen doors on the SAS as of 2013. But they will do it on the (7) extension in Manhattan. SAS wont get CBTC since by approximately 2016 they will start installing CBTC on the Queens Blvd Line which takes precedence on priority over the SAS for obvious reasons as it is the second most heavily line next to the Lex IRT as per MTA. My opinions on that is exactly what the MTA thinks because they definitely know what they are doing as far as capital construction projects nowadays. 

 

They've been discussing a test station on the (L) as well, unfortunately. 

 

Also, I could be wrong, but I thought that, assuming the CBTC equipment is standardized by the time track installation starts, that SAS was going to be built with the hardware for it already in place. It doesn't make sense to build a new line with full knowledge that you'll have to overhaul the signal system in a few years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The signals on the SAS will be CBTC ready, but they won't use the CBTC until much later...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The signals on the SAS will be CBTC ready, but they won't use the CBTC until much later...

 

 

Exactly. Because of pending maintenance costs to keep it going I'm assuming. Plus they might as well install CBTC on all of BMT Broadway, 63rd St line and BMT Brighton in addition to the SAS to justify the CBTC benefits on the (Q) at least in my opinion. And again the QBL is the higher priority right now, as I've said. Much like the Flushing IRT because of such high ridership resulting in problems with congestion. That's my educated guess.

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've been discussing a test station on the (L) as well, unfortunately. 

 

Also, I could be wrong, but I thought that, assuming the CBTC equipment is standardized by the time track installation starts, that SAS was going to be built with the hardware for it already in place. It doesn't make sense to build a new line with full knowledge that you'll have to overhaul the signal system in a few years...

SAS will not need to be rebuilt with CBTC in a few years- It will have a new wayside signal system more than capable of any operation we might see on SAS. SAS Can't use CBTC if there are R68s running up there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do R68/as have a 96th/2nd av destination in the roll sign? I thought that's probably why the Q would have to be 100% NTT (of course there's always emergencies or they need a train for service).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do R68/as have a 96th/2nd av destination in the roll sign? I thought that's probably why the Q would have to be 100% NTT (of course there's always emergencies or they need a train for service).

They do not (they didn't consider the 2nd ave line when they were delivered), and that would require a new rollsign or additional strips.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.