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  
IntExp

Less Seats for Subway Riders? A study by NYCT researchers seems to think so.

Recommended Posts

Well, this is interesting...

 

041213subwaychart.jpg

 

A study came out from a group of researchers from NYCT that found that...

  • Most New Yorkers prefer to stand in front of the windows (shocker)
  • When seating is at 70% capacity, "standing room" is already being consumed in a significant way.

In the graphic above, the research team lays out their suggestions for future subway cars. Notably, their final suggestion features... a large area in the center of the car with no seats at all. This would allow "longer-distance passengers to gravitate towards airline seats at car ends, and short-distance riders to stand in the middle zone with no seats."

 

Link to Gothamist Article - http://gothamist.com/2013/04/13/is_this_the_subway_car_design_of_th.php

Link to Actual Study (PDF File)- http://docs.trb.org/prp/13-1693.pdf

 

Thoughts?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an interesting idea. The non-symmetrical door idea sounds a bit odd, and I suspect it costs more to install and maintain non-symmetrical doors. To be honest, while this is nice, and it is true that people don't like the "middle" seat, when a car is full, people do end up taking that seat anyway. 

 

I wonder if these researchers wore MTA vests when doing their research or were plainclothed lol. 

Edited by QM1to6Ave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no shocker... You have people that just don't like sitting on the subway and will stand no matter what like myself and some people don't like being squeezed or being next to someone. I've seen it on the (1) train recently.  Big white guy got on and the two guys he squeezed in next looked like ugh, can't you take a hint that there's no damn room?? lol Between the endless bums on the train and idiots like that, that's why I don't even bother sit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't the 142/A's already have non symmetrical doors?

 

They do. Perhaps they're referring to 60 foot cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the train is crushloaded, I'd rather be standing than sitting with people standing right up against me.

 

The middle seat problem usually isn't an issue on NYCT bench seats. The commuter railroads have a problem with them, though. And the R46/R68/A layout is just atrocious.

 

Also, I wonder how other cities do it. Is NYC the only city to have bench seating (before CTA's 5000s arrived)?

Edited by Amtrak7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They do. Perhaps they're referring to 60 foot cars.

 

R32's and R42's (and everything that came between them) also have offset doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't the 142/A's already have non symmetrical doors?

Yes, the A cars are symmetrical, but the b cars are not. I personally prefer symmetrical and bench seating. As long as they don't use bucket seating, which forces people to sit in predesignated spaces, then I don't see the problem with the seats. The bucket seats, you pretty much have people leaving a seat b/w them empty. Or someone may try to sit on top of the divider if those 2 seats are empty. I also find the window side seats of the R46-68 a little cramped now and don't rush for that seat unless no one is sitting in front of me on the inner facing seat.

Edited by Grand Concourse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not taking this study at face value; seat positions - YGTBKM.... This is nothing more than finding a way to sardine more people onto subway cars... Instead of focusing on standees, the focus should be on seating more passengers... Who looks forward to standing over sitting when they don't have to? AFAIC, it's backwards thinking, putting the cart before the horse, so to speak....

 

I'm not putting stock into where people prefer to stand (especially enough to want to make a study out of it) because these are the same people on a wide scale that would gladly, openly, and willingly squat their glutei maximi on an available seat if a car is empty enough for them..... Someone standing inside of an empty enough subway car is up to something, more often than not.....

 

Gee, I guess I should look on the bright side huh.... It's not like the fool a while back that suggested entirely removing seating from subway cars.....

Edited by B35 via Church
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new subway cars fit a lot less people.  It's often standing room at midnight from Union Square all the way to Brooklyn on the Q train if you're not one of the lucky few to get a seat at Times Square or 34th St. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(DELETED)



What do the partitions in the middle of C separate exactly? They are like right up against the wall.

Edited by CenSin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This agency has the biggest hard-on for trying to put as few seats on their trains and buses as possible.  All this study does is try to justify eliminating seats which is the biggest pile of nonsense you can find.  The (MTA) needs to go "sit down" somewhere with that crap.

Edited by Princelex
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the train is crushloaded, I'd rather be standing than sitting with people standing right up against me.

 

The middle seat problem usually isn't an issue on NYCT bench seats. The commuter railroads have a problem with them, though. And the R46/R68/A layout is just atrocious.

 

Also, I wonder how other cities do it. Is NYC the only city to have bench seating (before CTA's 5000s arrived)?

 

Boston's Red Line cars have seats that pull up during rush hour, and they tried that on the (E) and got a universally negative response.

 

Most major metros have bench seating, or have bench-type seats in an R44 configuration.

 

Tokyo and most Japanese metro areas solve the "standing by the door" problem by putting about five or six doors in every car, so that you're never really "away" from a door. (This also cuts down on dwell time.)

 

Singapore (and it looks like the new BART trains) at one point were testing something like a ballet bar of pads to lean on in the middle cars instead of seats. (This has not been rolled out due to dismal results, but BART seems not to like anything that isn't "special".) Singapore also uses poles that spit into three poles in the middle and then converge back again, so that you're not prevented from using a pole if some dickwad is leaning on the thing. (I saw an R160 with this at one point, and I was surprised, although I may have been hallucinating...)

Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new subway cars fit a lot less people.  It's often standing room at midnight from Union Square all the way to Brooklyn on the Q train if you're not one of the lucky few to get a seat at Times Square or 34th St.

 

no, the newest cars can fit more people because the b cars don't have cabs taking up space. So now space that would've been taken up for an unused cab is freed up for at least 2 seats and 2 standees.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed^. Let's just be lucky we don't have Chicago's rail cars..... It could of been worst.....

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a train or bus is crowded, I'll continue to stand no matter what since I was harrass and threaten by some angry and crazy hotheaded man who accused me of trying to rip off his "rich" jacket after I sat next to 'em while on an Uptown (A) Express from Fulton-Broadway Nassau during the AM Rush. Can't some slick and typical crap like that from people.

Edited by RollOverMyHead
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes more sense to have less seats if a lot of them aren't going to be used since most people don't like making contact with strangers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not taking this study at face value; seat positions - YGTBKM.... This is nothing more than finding a way to sardine more people onto subway cars... Instead of focusing on standees, the focus should be on seating more passengers... Who looks forward to standing over sitting when they don't have to? AFAIC, it's backwards thinking, putting the cart before the horse, so to speak....

 

The problem is that, except along the sides of the car, a seated passenger (including seat) takes up a lot more space than a standing passenger, and narrow aisles impede passenger flow. While it would be nice if every subway rider could get a seat, it's simply not realistic, and if you tried to maximize seating capacity, you'd reduce total capacity (seating plus standing) so much that a lot of people simply wouldn't fit onto the train at all.

 

Most subway lines carry a mix of long haul riders and shorter distance riders. The ones going shorter distances generally don't care if they have to stand, as long as they fit onto the train in the first place. The ones going longer distances are more likely to get seats, either when they first board (since they're closer to the beginning of the line) or as other riders get off.

 

The new subway cars fit a lot less people.  It's often standing room at midnight from Union Square all the way to Brooklyn on the Q train if you're not one of the lucky few to get a seat at Times Square or 34th St. 

 

No, they fit more people on a per-train basis, because they don't have seats protruding into the middle of the aisle. They have fewer seats, but they carry more people.

 

(I say "on a per-train basis" because the R160's currently on the Q are shorter than the R68's that used to run on the line. An R160 does carry fewer people than an R68, but a Q train is made up of 10 R160's or only 8 R68's.)

 

A train isn't full when all of its seats are taken. During rush hours, most riders have to stand. Off-peak, the loading guideline now calls for 125% of a seated load - that is, a train isn't considered full, for scheduling purposes, until it has 20% more riders than seats.

 

This agency has the biggest hard-on for trying to put as few seats on their trains and buses as possible.  All this study does is try to justify eliminating seats which is the biggest pile of nonsense you can find.  The (MTA) needs to go "sit down" somewhere with that crap.

 

This is an independent research paper by three NYCT employees and one Metro-North employee. As the very last sentence states explicitly: "Opinions expressed are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect official policy or positions of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority or any of its constituent operating agencies."

 

But I'm curious. Ridership has been going up but track capacity generally hasn't. If you're proposing to reduce the total capacity of each car by replacing standing space with seats, where do you expect the additional riders to go?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly and also don't forget the unloading/loading time, usually a high capacity train with a lot of space taken by the seats means that the time in station is longer because passengers movement in cars is more difficult (less space for moving).

A subway is not a intercity train, it has very tight schedules. A longer time staying in station means less trains per hour and less trains per hour means less capacity.

Edited by Minato ku
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a train or bus is crowded, I'll continue to stand no matter what since I was harrass and threaten by some angry and crazy hotheaded man who accused me of trying to rip off his "rich" jacket after I sat next to 'em while on an Uptown (A) Express from Fulton-Broadway Nassau during the AM Rush. Can't some slick and typical crap like that from people.

 

Ignore idiots like that. In New York, there's always gonna be an angry nut that yells at you for nothing every once in a while. I just had that from some crazy old bag a few weeks back. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops. I forgot to put 'Can't "stand" some slick and typical crap like that from people.'

Edited by RollOverMyHead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore idiots like that. In New York, there's always gonna be an angry nut that yells at you for nothing every once in a while. I just had that from some crazy old bag a few weeks back. 

 

Yeah. After being threaten to get beat up and pay "his million dollars for almost trying to rip off his jacket" as part of his "accusation", I just walked away to the next car. I just calm down and enjoy the ride, ain't wasting my time arguing with some grown up nut...I felt a little better afterwards...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that, except along the sides of the car, a seated passenger (including seat) takes up a lot more space than a standing passenger, and narrow aisles impede passenger flow. While it would be nice if every subway rider could get a seat, it's simply not realistic, and if you tried to maximize seating capacity, you'd reduce total capacity (seating plus standing) so much that a lot of people simply wouldn't fit onto the train at all.

 

Really. Didn't the Standards have the most seating capacity of all the cars? Didn't everyone love those cars? They didn't have narrow aisles to impede flow. Maybe we should consider returning to a similar design instead of focusing on increasing car capacity.

 

Most subway lines carry a mix of long haul riders and shorter distance riders. The ones going shorter distances generally don't care if they have to stand, as long as they fit onto the train in the first place. The ones going longer distances are more likely to get seats, either when they first board (since they're closer to the beginning of the line) or as other riders get off.

 

And since when do you speak for all riders? It has been my experience that everyone wants a seat. Of course, as you state that is not possible, but that doesn't mean we should provide fewer seats either. From what I've seen, the only people who don't care if they have to stand are those traveling only one or two short stops, and that's a small minority of the passengers. Virtually everyone would prefer not to stand for more than five minutes. Unfortunately, most don't have a choice.

 

The other times, someone will prefer to stand when seats are available, is when only a small space is available and they don't want to squeeze in or ask someone to move over. To prove how much passengers desire seats, when you were allowed to walk between cars, many would walk through half a train until they found a seat.

 

A train isn't full when all of its seats are taken. During rush hours, most riders have to stand. Off-peak, the loading guideline now calls for 125% of a seated load - that is, a train isn't considered full, for scheduling purposes, until it has 20% more riders than seats.

I'm curious. Do you think if fewer seats are available, additional trains will be scheduled during the off-peak or they will just change the guidelines to allow for more standees?

 

But I'm curious. Ridership has been going up but track capacity generally hasn't. If you're proposing to reduce the total capacity of each car by replacing standing space with seats, where do you expect the additional riders to go?

You are making a fallacious assumption, that ridership has been going up during the peak periods. I doubt that has been happening because trains were already at peak capacity during rush hours. Most of the increase in ridership has probably been occurring during the shoulders and off-peak periods where additional track capacity is available and more trains could operate. Therefore I think it does make sense to add more seats to cars operating on the less crowded lines.

 

The trains with the fewest seats should operate only on the heaviest lines. But I see no reason to reduce the current number of seats. Yes long distance riders have a greater chance of getting a seat before they get off, but fewer seats mean they will have to stand longer before getting a seat. You don't want to make the trains less comfortable so that some start switching to express bus.

Edited by BrooklynBus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trains with the fewest seats should operate only on the heaviest lines. But I see no reason to reduce the current number of seats. Yes long distance riders have a greater chance of getting a seat before they get off, but fewer seats mean they will have to stand longer before getting a seat. You don't want to make the trains less comfortable so that some start switching to express bus.

LOL.... Is that such a bad thing???

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.