news MTA Board Considers Using Platform Doors...

[RailRunRob]

These platform screen doors are going to be canvases for vandals.

What's different between this and the setup on the Jubilee or line 14 in Paris they somehow make it work. 

[Lance]

I finally got around to responding to this. First off, if I had a nickel every time someone suggested or considered installing platform doors, I'd be a very rich man. People keep making this suggestion and every time they do, someone points out the exorbitant costs involved with such a project, even considering a half-height version, and thus the idea dies yet again. Even if these were only installed at so-called high risk stations like Grand Central and Times Square, the costs of building and installing this would run in the tens of millions easily. Then, there's the major issue of door lengths. On the A-Division, it's not a major issue and the MTA could possibly get around the slight differences in door placement between the 62s and 142s/188s. However, on the B-Division, this issue plays an important part in whether this project is actually feasible. Right now, there are no underground lines besides the Concourse that use similar length cars with similar door placement. 60- and 75-footer cars intermingle with each other everywhere else on the lettered lines. If there were ever platform doors or whatever installed on these lines, they have to take into account these discrepancies. Then there's the matter of training the operators exactly where they need to stop. While most are good to stop at their intended stop marker, there is always some leeway and some operators don't stop precisely at the marker. With PSDs in play, that wiggle room is removed as the doors on the train will not line up with the platform doors.

 

My personal feeling is that I don't think we (and we all know it will be us since I can't see the state or the federal government footing the bill on this) should have to pay millions more to prevent a handful of incidents. I'd much more prefer that money go into improving service.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

I see the platform doors as more of a safety measure than an anti crowd measure because the doors could prevent people from falling onto the traCks at all.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Or from being shoved onto the tracks.

 

???? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow ????

THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer ????

[B35 via Church]

It seems like the more the focus on safety, the worse service becomes.  I personally don't think the cares (about safety or reliability).  

They're just obsessed with liability, so they're looking to mitigate risk more than anything else.

Someone has their eyes open....

 

The MTA is like Torts & his 6 goalie system - too damn defensive for its own good.

[HenryB]

People still get killed with these. They get stuck between the platform doors and the train. I can see this happening regularly. People will try to push through the platform doors like people do with the train doors.

 

 

That should not happen if the gap between the train and PSD is small

[Interested Rider]

Lance is correct as the question becomes where is the money to pay for platform doors when the money could be better spent on other things to improve the service.The MTA has to fight tooth and nail to get federal funds for projects that are considered much, much more important as compared to platform doors. As I stated before this is a waste of money as  (for example) I wonder how the 8th Avenue N Station will fare as it is built on a curve and I remember one conductor on the Triplexes who stepped off the train and looked down the platform before closing the doors on the right side and then stepped back on to close the rest of the doors.

Via Garibaldi is right as the MTA is obsessed with liability especially when they are paying out big sums of money for lawsuits. All we have to do is look at the awards that juries are giving out today. To me, platform doors will mean increased liability and therefore less money for projects that benefit the riding public  

[rbrome]

I don't always agree with Prendergast, but his remarks about PSDs this week are on the nose. What he said was essentially that they make sense on new lines, but they are so difficult to install on existing lines that it's completely impractical. It's not technically impossible, but it's a very expensive nightmare. 

So... I think we should be talking seriously about installing them on the Second Ave Subway, but otherwise, forget it. 

[bobtehpanda]

PSDs only make sense for any train line that is going to be using all NTT for the forseeable future, which essentially means the and , and presumably the and once Queens Blvd CBTC are completed, on Queens Blvd.

 

The fact that PSDs stop people from falling onto the tracks is a PR-facing upside, but that's not the main point of them. Full-height PSDs allow cost-effective climate control, and all PSDs reduce the risk of track fire by making it much harder for debris to fall onto the tracks unless someone is purposely trying to chuck stuff over.

[MTA Bus]

I feel like platform screen doors would be a smart investment, but like many people have already stated, they would only be ideal for lines that are 100% NTT ( , , possibly ).

[Interested Rider]

Today's New York Post has an article which provides an alternative to platform doors from the union's perspective as well as presents the view from the person that has become a victim, that is the train operator. and the trauma that he/ she goes through after something as tragic as a person falling to the tracks or being pushed in front of the train. The Post also has an article on Board member Charles Moerdler and his idea for platform doors being discussed at the Board Meeting today.

The two articles when taken together has me asking questions as to how and why only one side of the issue was being presented and not the other side. I think part of the problem is that is what is called journalism today consists of presenting one side of the issue. I note that for the past couple of weeks, all we heard about was platform doors but it seems that no one in the media ever asked the union as to for their views and their alternatives until we read about it today. This means that what a reputable journalist does was not done as it is called research and therefore presenting both sides of an issue. Taking it one step further asking the union for its opinion was not presented in the articles but those who have posted on this thread have intimated that it is quite possible that Mr. Prendergast knows of the alternative but has to say nothing as he is a political appointee.What was presented until today unfortunately has become the new norm in the media today as there are countless numbers of articles where one side but not the other is presented and sold as journalism.

There is now a second option available and the MTA stated that it is testing it at one station. For this I say let us see what will be the outcome of the test and compare it to the other alternative. I think that what is occurring here is that the idea of management and the union working together for the good of all concerned is one that does not exist in an era where both sides are at war. Since this does not fit the narrative today, then the journalist that is dependent on the largese of political leaders for information will not present it, no matter how relevant it is to the subject being discussed.

[Around the Horn]

Wait, there's a Board Meeting today?

 

As for the test, if your talking about the sensor system at Rector Street on the , that's been known for years. They installed that during the Montague construction IIRC

[bobtehpanda]

Today's New York Post has an article which provides an alternative to platform doors from the union's perspective as well as presents the view from the person that has become a victim, that is the train operator. and the trauma that he/ she goes through after something as tragic as a person falling to the tracks or being pushed in front of the train. The Post also has an article on Board member Charles Moerdler and his idea for platform doors being discussed at the Board Meeting today.

The two articles when taken together has me asking questions as to how and why only one side of the issue was being presented and not the other side. I think part of the problem is that is what is called journalism today consists of presenting one side of the issue. I note that for the past couple of weeks, all we heard about was platform doors but it seems that no one in the media ever asked the union as to for their views and their alternatives until we read about it today. This means that what a reputable journalist does was not done as it is called research and therefore presenting both sides of an issue. Taking it one step further asking the union for its opinion was not presented in the articles but those who have posted on this thread have intimated that it is quite possible that Mr. Prendergast knows of the alternative but has to say nothing as he is a political appointee.What was presented until today unfortunately has become the new norm in the media today as there are countless numbers of articles where one side but not the other is presented and sold as journalism.

There is now a second option available and the MTA stated that it is testing it at one station. For this I say let us see what will be the outcome of the test and compare it to the other alternative. I think that what is occurring here is that the idea of management and the union working together for the good of all concerned is one that does not exist in an era where both sides are at war. Since this does not fit the narrative today, then the journalist that is dependent on the largese of political leaders for information will not present it, no matter how relevant it is to the subject being discussed.

 

The article is here, if anyone is interested. Interestingly, it doesn't actually have an anti-platform-door angle; nothing is really stopping both from being implemented at the same time.

 

The main problem with that is that it only really helps if the person falls onto the platform within braking distance of a train. It does nothing for intentional jumpers or people who get pushed later than that. It also doesn't reduce litter falling onto the tracks and causing track fires.

 

I'm not quite sure what the reflexive stance against them is about. Accidents with people getting stuck between them are rare, even on systems that are much busier and more crowded than ours (and therefore have more scope for these kinds of incidents). I can understand that they are potentially not the best use of money, but nothing about this says that the sensor system is cheaper. It is also true that they cannot be installed on all lines today due to technological constraints, but it doesn't seem like that's what it's about, either.

[HenryB]

I don't always agree with Prendergast, but his remarks about PSDs this week are on the nose. What he said was essentially that they make sense on new lines, but they are so difficult to install on existing lines that it's completely impractical. It's not technically impossible, but it's a very expensive nightmare. 

So... I think we should be talking seriously about installing them on the Second Ave Subway, but otherwise, forget it. 

 

 

No, we still have R68/R46 in B division, especially there are R68 running on  

Maybe 34st-Hudson is a good place to start testing PSD?

[Eric B]

I still wonder if it's possible to have doors for both lengths. The biggest problem would actually be some of them being too close to each other, in places. But it seems no one has ever looked into comparing the two car sizes and lining up where the doors would fall relative to each other, and if it could be done that way. (You'd have to have a mechanism that would recognize which car class is stopping and only open the associated doors. This would be integrated into the circuit that opens them in sync with the train in the first place. Still, just installing these things everywhere, and maintaining them, seems very prohibitive).

[7LineFan]

I still wonder if it's possible to have doors for both lengths. The biggest problem would actually be some of them being too close to each other, in places. But it seems no one has ever looked into comparing the two car sizes and lining up where the doors would fall relative to each other, and if it could be done that way. (You'd have to have a mechanism that would recognize which car class is stopping and only open the associated doors. This would be integrated into the circuit that opens them in sync with the train in the first place. Still, just installing these things everywhere, and maintaining them, seems very prohibitive).

 

In terms of that issue, and that issue only, what about a rope-based system like this one?

 

https://youtu.be/ITr2NdmWWI4?t=17s

 

As you can see multiple doors fit behind one rope section so you don't have to be as precise with the stanchion placement. (EDIT: Also, if you go back to the beginning of that video there's a segment with movable half-height doors. The Japanese had the same problem with the different door placements and these are two of their solutions.)

 

There's also a different version where the conductor controls when the ropes block the train off:

 

https://youtu.be/1sGtbRSCLQQ?t=4m25s

 

Of course, this does nothing about cost (although I would suspect it's cheaper than full doors), and forget about climate control. You'd also be restricted to stations where the ropes can lift high enough to clear the doors fully, but it seems these are only installed at outdoor stations anyway. 

 

No, we still have R68/R46 in B division, especially there are R68 running on  

Maybe 34st-Hudson is a good place to start testing PSD?

I'd actually argue that Mets-Willets point is a better place.

 

1. It's lightly trafficked besides game days.

2. There's a mostly unused, full length platform in the station.

3. You can easily change the service pattern to keep full service running yet avoid the areas being worked on.

[HenryB]

I still wonder if it's possible to have doors for both lengths. The biggest problem would actually be some of them being too close to each other, in places. But it seems no one has ever looked into comparing the two car sizes and lining up where the doors would fall relative to each other, and if it could be done that way. (You'd have to have a mechanism that would recognize which car class is stopping and only open the associated doors. This would be integrated into the circuit that opens them in sync with the train in the first place. Still, just installing these things everywhere, and maintaining them, seems very prohibitive).

 

 

Possible, but difficult and inefficient. You still have to deal with the signal system, which need to be upgraded in order to operate PSDs.

So why not just wait a bit until all the lines are equipped with modern signal system, and NTT, maybe then we could consider PSD installation to the entire system   

[HenryB]

 

 

I'd actually argue that Mets-Willets point is a better place.

 

1. It's lightly trafficked besides game days.

2. There's a mostly unused, full length platform in the station.

3. You can easily change the service pattern to keep full service running yet avoid the areas being worked on.

 

I worry about how much more extra statics weight the EL station platforms could handle, since any kind of platform gate system (PSD/APG/Rope-based Gate) are heavy and giving a lot of stress to the plaforms. 

[Wallyhorse]

I worry about how much more extra statics weight the EL station platforms could handle, since any kind of platform gate system (PSD/APG/Rope-based Gate) are heavy and giving a lot of stress to the plaforms. 

This sounds like something only a new elevated line (like if the 3rd Avenue EL ever got rebuilt for example) could be placed on as any such building would include such.  

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

The article is here, if anyone is interested.

It's a wrenching read. It further illustrates why I feel MTA top brass have no souls.

 

???? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow ????

THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer ????

This sounds like something only a new elevated line (like if the 3rd Avenue EL ever got rebuilt for example) could be placed on as any such building would include such.

But the MetroNorth lines already cover that stretch. I was browsing through historic imagery and noted that too.

 

Here it is BTW:

 

That section also contains the most ravaged sections of the Bronx. Many beggars occupy that corridor. I often take the bus to "sidestep" to another station in a different system.

 

For instance, the was stalled at 145 St because of police activity at 161 St. So, I took the Bx19 to 149th Street for the . Since the issue was at 161st Street I did NOT take the .

 

???? Eric Shields | #MassTransitHonchkrow ????

THE Hudson Valley's essential Fare-blazer ????