Jump to content

Transit workers call on cops to help kick homeless, drunks off trains


Via Garibaldi 8

Recommended Posts

Transit workers call on cops to help kick homeless, drunks off trains

By Danielle Furfaro

November 8, 2017 | 10:58pm | Updated

ax087_42c4_9.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=

A homeless man sleeps on a 1 train  R. Umar Abbasi

City transit workers say there are so many passed-out drunks and snoozing homeless people on subway trains at the end of their lines that they need the NYPD’s help to give them all the boot.

The Transport Workers Union wants cops stationed at all of the terminal stations to help MTA workers clear the cars before they’re returned to the yard.

Sometimes, unruly riders get violent, attacking workers who try to remove them, union officials said.

“When you wake somebody up, you don’t know what state they are going to be in,” said Crystal Young, chair of the TWU’s conductor and tower division.

“Sometimes, people are attacked. Sometimes they are spit on.”

There are 33 terminal stations in the city — and the union wants cops at each one, Young said.

“The prevalence of homeless and inebriated passengers poses a difficult challenge for everyone who works in the subway,” said TWU Local 100 President Tony Utano.

The union’s plea comes a day after The Post published cellphone video showing an MTA worker dragging and kicking a drunken G-train passenger.

In the video, the worker drags the sleeping man by his hoodie after the train made its final stop in Kensington, Brooklyn, Saturday.

The worker, who has since been taken off duty, then kicks him to get him to wake up.

A photo published by The Post last month showed a man sleeping underneath the seats of a 3 train — prompting Gov. Cuomo and MTA Chairman Joe Lhota to blast Mayor de Blasio and say cops need to do more to get homeless people out of city subways.

When asked about the union’s plea, NYPD officials insisted they are already patrolling the system.

“Officers are assigned to and patrol the New York City transit system on a daily basis,” an NYPD spokesperson said. “Anyone with an emergency or is in need of police assistance can approach an officer or contact 911.”

102117_sleeper.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&

Doree Lewak

At the end of the A line in Inwood, a 47-year-old train cleaner wielding a broom and dustpan said the homeless are “definitely” a problem. “They make it hard for us,” he said.

Another MTA maintenance worker said he lets the police handle the homeless problem. “We have to work around them,” he said shortly after sweeping trash from under the seat of a homeless-looking man slumped in his sleep.

“I’m paid to mop and sweep and deal with the graffiti. The homeless, that’s for the police to deal with.”

Additional reporting by Alex Taylor and Danika Fears

Source: http://nypost.com/2017/11/08/mta-wants-cops-to-help-kick-homeless-drunks-off-trains/

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Agreed. it is not the responsibility of the transit workers to deal with the homeless or the inebriated at the terminals or in the system. 

The first question that is always asked is "were you trained in how to deal with the situation" and then the question becomes '"why did you get involved"?".

Let the police handle the problem. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Interested Rider said:

Agreed. it is not the responsibility of the transit workers to deal with the homeless or the inebriated at the terminals or in the system. 

The first question that is always asked is "were you trained in how to deal with the situation" and then the question becomes '"why did you get involved"?".

Let the police handle the problem. 

Now that de Blasio has a second term, let's see how the homeless situation goes since he's promised to tackle it. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm not sure what is going to change in 2018 that makes him think that he has such a mandate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

At this rate, I'll give it 6 months before we start seeing State Troopers patrolling the subway system...

State-run system. There already at Penn, GCT and PABT. Why not the subway?

If they’d raise the age of eligibility from 30 to 40 (like damn near every other state police force), I’d don the Stetson and grays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the mayor has forgotten about his re-election was that at least 75% of the voters that went to the polls did so that they could vote against the constitutional convention, and not for him. I was looking for a high turnout but once it started raining, the number of voters dropped precipitously as compared with the numbers prior to the rain  or 80 voters prior to noon when the rain started and 56 voters from noon till 9 AM.

The Transport Workers Union was one of the mayor's biggest supporters and he should listen to the union and implement their suggestions to protect their workers who have no business getting involved. I agree with posters Deucey and, paulrivera here but for a different  reason that Governor Cuomo will do something if the mayor resorts back to his ideology, not to the practicality of doing something right. The governor will need the support of the TWU when he runs for re=election next year and if it means placing state troopers at the end of subway lines to resolve this problem, consider it done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Interested Rider said:

What the mayor has forgotten about his re-election was that at least 75% of the voters that went to the polls did so that they could vote against the constitutional convention, and not for him. I was looking for a high turnout but once it started raining, the number of voters dropped precipitously as compared with the numbers prior to the rain  or 80 voters prior to noon when the rain started and 56 voters from noon till 9 AM.

The Transport Workers Union was one of the mayor's biggest supporters and he should listen to the union and implement their suggestions to protect their workers who have no business getting involved. I agree with posters Deucey and, paulrivera here but for a different  reason that Governor Cuomo will do something if the mayor resorts back to his ideology, not to the practicality of doing something right. The governor will need the support of the TWU when he runs for re=election next year and if it means placing state troopers at the end of subway lines to resolve this problem, consider it done.

My polling station was changed to another place, and I didn't have a long wait at all compared to last year, but he needs to understand that he didn't receive a mandate at all. Turnout was horrondeous, rain or no rain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the same way where I worked as last year our turnout was approximately 360  voters and this year the figure was 135. 

There are three groups that usually come out and make up the bulk of the voters at the polling place where I work; the elderly, the immigrants and what I define as the Martin Luther King generation that remember the fight to achieve voting rights. Last year we had good weather and thus all three of these groups came out in large numbers along with a considerable number of young people who came out to vote. The rain discouraged all of these groups of voters who did not feel like coming out this past Tuesday as the only hot button issue was the constitutional convention. Last year there were lines from the early morning until noon and then from approximately 3 PM till almost closing time and this year as Via Garibaldi stated, there were virtually no lines when she voted and I might add, this was throughout the day and the usual evening rush never materialized this year

When I explained the ballot to the voters, I was able pick up where the voter's interest lies in terms of what was their reason for coming out to vote. In virtually each and every presentation,  I noted it was the constitutional convention and the fear that pensions would be reduced. The only comments that I heard about the mayor was the fact that virtually no one knew who were his opponents were and what were their positions. This applied to the other  races as well.

As far as the mayor is concerned, it is all about ideology and not about reality. The reason that the Republicans took a beating at the polls was the Democratic Party was able to mobilize its base supporters to come out to vote and the Republicans could not do it as compared with last year. We all know the reasons the Democratic voters came out this year as compared with last year   If the mayor thinks that winning with  60%  in an election where there was a 22% turnout is a lot of voters, let him run for higher office either on the state level or on the federal level. Then watch how he energizes those who can't stand him come out to vote against him in an election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Interested Rider said:

It was the same way where I worked as last year our turnout was approximately 360  voters and this year the figure was 135. 

There are three groups that usually come out and make up the bulk of the voters at the polling place where I work; the elderly, the immigrants and what I define as the Martin Luther King generation that remember the fight to achieve voting rights. Last year we had good weather and thus all three of these groups came out in large numbers along with a considerable number of young people who came out to vote. The rain discouraged all of these groups of voters who did not feel like coming out this past Tuesday as the only hot button issue was the constitutional convention. Last year there were lines from the early morning until noon and then from approximately 3 PM till almost closing time and this year as Via Garibaldi stated, there were virtually no lines when she voted and I might add, this was throughout the day and the usual evening rush never materialized this year

When I explained the ballot to the voters, I was able pick up where the voter's interest lies in terms of what was their reason for coming out to vote. In virtually each and every presentation,  I noted it was the constitutional convention and the fear that pensions would be reduced. The only comments that I heard about the mayor was the fact that virtually no one knew who were his opponents were and what were their positions. This applied to the other  races as well.

As far as the mayor is concerned, it is all about ideology and not about reality. The reason that the Republicans took a beating at the polls was the Democratic Party was able to mobilize its base supporters to come out to vote and the Republicans could not do it as compared with last year. We all know the reasons the Democratic voters came out this year as compared with last year   If the mayor thinks that winning with  60%  in an election where there was a 22% turnout is a lot of voters, let him run for higher office either on the state level or on the federal level. Then watch how he energizes those who can't stand him come out to vote against him in an election.

The problem is that it suits both parties to make voting unattractive to the majority of people so they can put their chosen people in with minimal effort. Voting last year was such a mess with the Democrats disqualifying hundreds of thousands in Brooklyn for the primary vote, and that was on top of the normal BS with the elections stuffed with candidates that don't bother putting out any information about their campaign, how hard it is to find out what exactly your districts for so and so election are, how often the polling places switch, etc. It's such an obvious racket, but the only way to really fix it is a ConCon, which no one wants to vote for because of the pension poison pill.

My new home state is comparatively much better at encouraging local voting; open, top-two primaries, mailed voter pamphlets with a description of each candidate's platform, and mail ballots with free postage. But the establishment in NY doesn't want people to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem is that it suits both parties to make voting unattractive to the majority of people so they can put their chosen people in with minimal effort. Voting last year was such a mess with the Democrats disqualifying hundreds of thousands in Brooklyn for the primary vote, and that was on top of the normal BS with the elections stuffed with candidates that don't bother putting out any information about their campaign, how hard it is to find out what exactly your districts for so and so election are, how often the polling places switch, etc. It's such an obvious racket, but the only way to really fix it is a ConCon, which no one wants to vote for because of the pension poison pill.

My new home state is comparatively much better at encouraging local voting; open, top-two primaries, mailed voter pamphlets with a description of each candidate's platform, and mail ballots with free postage. But the establishment in NY doesn't want people to vote.

Wait you left NYC permanently? Well that's interesting...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations! bobtehpanda for stating that what happened last year still apples to this year's New York City elections and you are now a resident of very beautiful city Seattle. I hope that you will have the opportunity to do some white water rafting next spring like I did on the Sauk River with a group of law librarians prior to a conference almost 25 years ago. Since you are safely ensconced in your new city and are voting there, let me update you as to what has happened since you last voted here and in response to what you are offering us as your pearls of wisdom about voting in New York City this year.

That said: Prior to primary day, a brochure was sent by the Board of Elections  giving the location of the polling place and the dates of elections. Many of the voters kept these brochures and it enabled  the voter to move expeditiously to the right election district and complete the process. It is not the Board's problem if a person does not look at it and discards it. The information desk clerk had an electronic key pad that helps the voter find his/her election district and are more than happy to give directions to that location.

Your statement that many registered Democratic voters were disqualified last year forgot the fact that registered Republicans were also disqualified as well. However, since the number of Republican voters is much smaller, then it seems that you did not care about them as you mention only the Democrats in your response.

A pamphlet was  sent to all voters listing all the candidates and positions that they were seeking a couple of weeks ago and again it was up to the voter to read the publication to find out who was running for what office. I heard from voters that they were not provided information as who to the candidates were and they were right to the extent as a one page summary of each  candidate and their positions was supposed to be sent to party members in my district this past June and then at least twice before the election.For the record, it was never sent as it did not receive the approval to  begin the project within the required time frame. It is hoped that this project will be in place for next year's election. 

The number of voters that voted this year by affidavit ballot where there was some problem with their registration dropped from 33 last year in the election district to 1 this year which means that the problems involving voter registration were almost all corrected. Affidavit ballots are given to the voter when there is a problem with an address, party registration is mislabeled (for example) and are counted separately at the Board of Elections after being checked there.

As far as your comment that New York City should hold non-partisan elections, I remain opposed as it enables the voters of one party to vote for the weakest candidate to run against their preferred candidate. What you are proposing is that the two candidates who obtain the highest number of votes in the first stage run against each other and what this does is it deprives voters who do not want either of them as the two candidates as in many cases they are members of the same party. This is what has happened in California and is the reason that there have been no Republican candidates for United States Senate in the last election and going back. There are major differences between the Democratic and Republican parties in this city and by having a non-partisan election here, voters would not have had that choice as unlike Seattle where there was no discernable difference between the two candidates for mayor this year which I found out by checking your local newspaper's website. This year as in every mayoral election there were major differences in philosophy and resolution of problems between the mayor and his opponents. The voters of all stripes regardless of political affiliation should have the freedom to choose their candidate and not have to choose from two of the same..

Voting is a problem here and  the reason is that many persons do not feel that voting is important enough that they should go out and do it. It seems that immigrants, senior citizens and the Martin Luther King generation do not shirk their responsibility and vote either in person or by absentee ballot but yet the millennials are the ones that almost never come out and do not take part in working for the party. In the presidential election, I saw many families come out , vote but this year, I saw very,few. If a person takes their civic responsibility seriously then the person will find a way to either  show up at the polls or vote via absentee ballot. If a person does not then they will always have an excuse for not voting.

 

 

lies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, people do not come out and vote in non-presidential years. This has been a problem for decades, at the very least, so to blame all on millennials is a bit rich, since this is not a new problem by any stretch of the imagination. Because turnout is so much lower during non-presidential years I find it hard to draw actual conclusions from these new initiatives you speak of, since problems increase exponentially as the number of people involved increases. 2020 would be the true test of whether or not things have changed for the better with regards to the elections processes. And that's actually part of the problem; the fact that all these elections are held in off years when nothing important is happening even at the state or federal level is part of why voters are so disengaged. And the lower turnout allows the parties to put their machine candidates in power, and combined with crap like the IDC and tactics like resigning your seat at a specific time so your successor can be picked, voters deeply distrust local and state government.

Non partisan voting is usually more reflective of what voters actually desire rather than just positing some arbitrary choice between two parties that stand for very specific things, and less and less people every year align with all parts of one party's platform. If you want to use Seattle as an example, the top two candidates were both Democrats and very similar, but this reflected the voters' choice; the top Republican result got 2.2% of votes in the open primary. Yet in New York, his affiliation would give him an automatic seat at the table for no good reason. An open primary would allow for someone who is, say, a Democrat but to the right of De Blasio to run and have a good shot at winning the general election, which would be an acceptable outcome; how many votes for Malliotakis were actually votes that weren't just protest votes against BdB?

Tactical voting as a tactic to weaken a party has generally never worked (see: Donald Trump), but the state of Washington is considering Ranked Choice Voting to alleviate that concern.

6 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Wait you left NYC permanently? Well that's interesting...

I've left, but I'll probably be back, and I am still interested in the general goings-on around these parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took the Q train early this morning to 42nd (4:38am from Church av).... I entered the 6th car of the train - switched cars because all the seats were taken...

the 5th car, there were a whopping five homeless people sleeping in that car.... One dude (passenger) was sitting amongst them... I'm not remotely religious, but god bless him, I guess...

switched to the 4th car..... 3 of the 8 doors had pyuuuk (puke) by the threshold & there were 2 homeless people sleeping in that car... No passengers were in that car & I power-walked with my shirt above my nose to get to the next car.....

I get to the 3rd car (which is the car I ended up saying, oh f*** it & just sat down).... nobody was sitting in the far-most section of that car because there was 1 homeless guy sleeping & one of the doors had puke at the threshold.... Everybody (incl. myself) that was sitting in that car, was sitting at the near-most 1/2 of it... Looking in the distance, the 1st car looked pretty packed & the 2nd car had about 4 or 5 seated pax in it.......

But yeah, that walking took place b/w the time I boarded & right after the train left Parkside...

When we got to Dekalb (and held for the (N)), the faces those people had coming off the N onto our Q, were priceless.....

Of course, throughout the duration of the ride, there wasn't one cop in sight - nor was I expecting to see one......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jamaica Center on the (E) level, 34th-Penn Station, 42nd-Grand Central, Columbus Circle, and Barclays Center would be good places to start kicking homeless and drunks out of the subway. Based off my experiences riding the subways during riding the subways and the LIRR, that's where I see homeless people on the subways, while drunks are ready to storm the Babylon Branch after a hard night of partying. The homeless folks on the (F) at 179th tend to not bother anyone while the ones at 169th usually sleep on the bench before by the entrance @ Hillside and 168th. I guess I find them less annoying than the homeless folks hanging around the HTC at the bench between the n6 and n40/41's bays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, NY1635 said:

Jamaica Center on the (E) level, 34th-Penn Station, 42nd-Grand Central, Columbus Circle, and Barclays Center would be good places to start kicking homeless and drunks out of the subway. Based off my experiences riding the subways during riding the subways and the LIRR, that's where I see homeless people on the subways, while drunks are ready to storm the Babylon Branch after a hard night of partying. The homeless folks on the (F) at 179th tend to not bother anyone while the ones at 169th usually sleep on the bench before by the entrance @ Hillside and 168th. I guess I find them less annoying than the homeless folks hanging around the HTC at the bench between the n6 and n40/41's bays.

Hell, the ones that "hangout" at the (Jamaica av) entrance for Jamaica-Van Wyck (E) are a PITA... Reminds me of Newark-Penn almost, the way they're all in the damn way....

Outside of the ones you mention (although IDK about CC, haven't used that station in a minute), 34th st - Herald sq. is another (dis)honorable mention...

Some of those local stations along the 4th av line are slowly seeing more vagabonds filling "vacancies".....

But yeah, in terms of ousting the homeless from the subway system, Penn Station should be priority numero uno...... Beyond Ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Hell, the ones that "hangout" at the (Jamaica av) entrance for Jamaica-Van Wyck (E) are a PITA... Reminds me of Newark-Penn almost, the way they're all in the damn way....

Outside of the ones you mention (although IDK about CC, haven't used that station in a minute), 34th st - Herald sq. is another (dis)honorable mention...

Some of those local stations along the 4th av line are slowly seeing more vagabonds filling "vacancies".....

But yeah, in terms of ousting the homeless from the subway system, Penn Station should be priority numero uno...... Beyond Ridiculous.

I put Columbus Circle on the list because there's usually homeless folks riding the Seventh Avenue Lines.  Then again, just like the (F) at Hillside, they don't really bother anyone. If anything, the ones on the (E) at Jamaica and the (J) tend to be the worse since they're irrational and prone to outbursts. Might have something to do with the (E) going thru blighted stations in Manhattan and Queens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Speaking of homeless, I’ve noticed that so many cars on a train have homeless that people sometimes refuse to get in. This homeless problem functionally reduces train capacity, by cutting off available space for paying passengers who are using transportation for its intended purpose. The MTA, by keeping the homeless comfortable on the trains, are just running mobile homes for the homeless at its own expense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Speaking of homeless, I’ve noticed that so many cars on a train have homeless that people sometimes refuse to get in. This homeless problem functionally reduces train capacity, by cutting off available space for paying passengers who are using transportation for its intended purpose. The MTA, by keeping the homeless comfortable on the trains, are just running mobile homes for the homeless at its own expense.

Case-in-point being last Saturday.  I took the express bus back from Brooklyn, made a stop at Whisk, then jumped on the subway and went to Crate & Barrel. Going down the (N) I was on was packed so it wasn't a problem.  My original plan was to take the (N) or the (R) back uptown, but I started walking  around a bit and made a stop at a coffee shop, which put me close to the Broadway-Lafayette Station.  I had the option of the (D) or the (F) so I took the (F).  As one pulled in, I immediately did a quick scan to see which car I was going to go into.  Two of them were quite empty (too empty) and so I looked again to try to figure out why.  One car had at least two homeless people that were taking up an entire bench to sit, so I eliminated that car instantly, not because I wanted to sit, but because I had just ate and didn't want to be inundated with some fowl odor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MTA needs to look at this as a business problem as well. More homeless people means less paying riders using the system as well as more trains needed to compensate for the loss capacity caused by homeless people stinking up the whole train.

42 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

One car had at least two homeless people that were taking up an entire bench to sit, so I eliminated that car instantly, not because I wanted to sit, but because I had just ate and didn't want to be inundated with some fowl odor.

If only it worked that way, it would be better. Usually, homeless people distribute themselves throughout the train taking up one car each. Theoretically, 10 homeless people on a train could functionally keep an entire train out of service as it makes its revenue run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CenSin said:

The MTA needs to look at this as a business problem as well. More homeless people means less paying riders using the system as well as more trains needed to compensate for the loss capacity caused by homeless people stinking up the whole train.

If only it worked that way, it would be better. Usually, homeless people distribute themselves throughout the train taking up one car each. Theoretically, 10 homeless people on a train could functionally keep an entire train out of service as it makes its revenue run.

The two of them basically had a bench to themselves each, so you know that even if people do ride in that car that at least half of it likely will be empty.  On some trains though like the (A) where crowding is a problem, they even ride during rush hour and they will take up a three-seater to themselves or an entire bench on the newer cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
12 minutes ago, I love NY said:

A question: to go in the trains, isn't necessary to pay the ticket? Is it advantageous for an homeless to pay the ticket to sleep in the train?

A lot of them ask for swipes or find some way of getting in for free. But even for those that pay, I guess they find it worth it to pay $2.75 to have a place to sleep for a few hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2017 at 12:16 PM, CenSin said:

Speaking of homeless, I’ve noticed that so many cars on a train have homeless that people sometimes refuse to get in. This homeless problem functionally reduces train capacity, by cutting off available space for paying passengers who are using transportation for its intended purpose. The MTA, by keeping the homeless comfortable on the trains, are just running mobile homes for the homeless at its own expense.

And that is a huge problem.  Until they are able to physically remove such passengers from trains quickly, this will continue to be a huge problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another place for the homeless is Flatbush/Nostrand (2)(5)  Station. You find them at all hours of the day. Most sleeping on cars during the early morning and late nights. I have since stop taking the train. It's disgusting and disrespectful that you pay your fare, board the train and have seat. The seats smell like feces, urine and anything else associated with disgusting  

Yes, I do work Downtown Brooklyn and to me I find it easier to drive in and park before 7AM and not deal with the train.  

Until the shelters are maintained in a way people are appreciated, workers who can help these people transition from Homelessness to stability and dealing with the mental population. We will continue to have these problems in this city and (MTA) subway system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Future ENY OP said:

Another place for the homeless is Flatbush/Nostrand (2)(5)  Station. You find them at all hours of the day. Most sleeping on cars during the early morning and late nights. I have since stop taking the train. It's disgusting and disrespectful that you pay your fare, board the train and have seat. The seats smell like feces, urine and anything else associated with disgusting  

Yes, I do work Downtown Brooklyn and to me I find it easier to drive in and park before 7AM and not deal with the train.  

Until the shelters are maintained in a way people are appreciated, workers who can help these people transition from Homelessness to stability and dealing with the mental population. We will continue to have these problems in this city and (MTA) subway system. 

Can't say I blame you. I still do use the subway, but I try to limit my use.  The biggest issue for me when I've had to use it has been mainly mentally disturbed people. I don't dare sit on those trains and don't touch anything.  Lack of cleaning and overrun with homeless people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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