Judge Tells MTA To Find Money For More Subway Elevators: 'You Find It For Other Things'

[Via Garibaldi 8]

8 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

The main feeling I get from ESI is that it is an improvement stemming from attempt at modernization, which is good. However, imo maintenance should be considered more than full station rehabs. Look at Archer Av, 2 Av... and I recall seeing water leaks also from either Bay Ridge Av or 53 St. Infrastructure deteriorates quickly--stations, cars, you name it.

2nd Avenue... My God... That station is almost up there with Chambers Street... Absolutely VILE!! 

[Bay Ridge Express]

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

2nd Avenue... My God... That station is almost up there with Chambers Street... Absolutely VILE!! 

Whoops, I was referring to the 2 Av Line due to the talk about water leaks a few weeks ago as an example of new stations/recently rehabbed stations that are going through problems, but yes, 2 Av  and Chambers St  /  are absolutely deteriorated.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

1 minute ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Whoops, I was referring to the 2 Av Line due to the talk about water leaks a few weeks ago as an example of new stations/recently rehabbed stations that are going through problems, but yes, 2 Av  and Chambers St  /  are absolutely deteriorated.

Oh the huh? Yes I've finally gotten around to using those stations. They all need extensive cleaning. All of the glass work is filthy. Should've used something that hides dirt better...

[NewFlyer 230]

13 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Whoops, I was referring to the 2 Av Line due to the talk about water leaks a few weeks ago as an example of new stations/recently rehabbed stations that are going through problems, but yes, 2 Av  and Chambers St  /  are absolutely deteriorated.

I think one of the newly done stations I believe it was either 72nd street or 86th street on the  line that already has a water leaking problem again. 

[Wallyhorse]

On 5/24/2019 at 6:30 PM, Union Tpke said:

Incorrect. They are evaluating all stations.

On February 6th, we invited members of the community here to 2 Broadway for an open discussion about the next stations to be made accessible under Fast Forward and the next capital plan. We had nearly 100 in-person attendees and more than 800 viewers watching on YouTube. We spent three hours in a frank and productive conversation, working through the options and challenges of each group of stations under consideration to meet our Fast Forward coverage goal, borough by borough. Input from this event, and follow-up discussions with advocates and community members, will be one of the factors that helps us prioritize stations for accessibility, along with the Stantec feasibility study and a host of other data points we have collected on each station. The Stantec study continues apace, with more than 160 stations studied to date.

http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/190225_1030_transit-bus.pdf

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-subway-elevator-accecssibility-20190131-story.html

I don't think people realize how difficult in some cases it would be to put in wheelchair access (which goes far beyond the actual purpose of doing so for the disabled).  Sure. such could have been added with the original subway as it was being built back in the day, but the attitudes on the disabled back then (100-125 years ago) were MUCH different than they have been the last 40+ years.  It was not thought of as important back then, and obviously no one thought of provisions for such or there being laws that would require such work to be done.  Back then, it likely also was not thought of that people would bring baby strollers and other such onto the subway the way they do now (even 20-25 years ago I used to never see it done like we see now on subways and buses).  Many of those attitudes were still in place when the IND was built.  People just didn't foresee the day where such would be required by law.

[MysteriousBtrain]

8 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

I don't think people realize how difficult in some cases it would be to put in wheelchair access (which goes far beyond the actual purpose of doing so for the disabled).  Sure. such could have been added with the original subway as it was being built back in the day, but the attitudes on the disabled back then (100-125 years ago) were MUCH different than they have been the last 40+ years.  It was not thought of as important back then, and obviously no one thought of provisions for such or there being laws that would require such work to be done.  Back then, it likely also was not thought of that people would bring baby strollers and other such onto the subway the way they do now (even 20-25 years ago I used to never see it done like we see now on subways and buses).  Many of those attitudes were still in place when the IND was built.  People just didn't foresee the day where such would be required by law.

That doesn't mean that it's impossible. There are several station that could just simply be expanded and you can slap some elevators there. 

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

I don't think people realize how difficult in some cases it would be to put in wheelchair access (which goes far beyond the actual purpose of doing so for the disabled).  Sure. such could have been added with the original subway as it was being built back in the day, but the attitudes on the disabled back then (100-125 years ago) were MUCH different than they have been the last 40+ years.  It was not thought of as important back then, and obviously no one thought of provisions for such or there being laws that would require such work to be done.

"It was difficult because people were shitty"

That doesn't make it difficult, that just makes it not a consideration, which are two wholly separate things. The IND had no problem literally digging around and under an active subway and el, so if they cared enough they would've been able to do it.

Edited May 27, 2019 by bobtehpanda

[Deucey]

On 5/24/2019 at 4:42 AM, Lex said:

The only way to reasonably rectify this is to reconstruct the station and the surrounding infrastructure (basically, the entire station would need to be deeper), a costly endeavor that hardly qualifies as being worth the effort, which becomes an even harder sell due to nearby stations either being accessible at this point in time (DeKalb Avenue and Atlantic-Barclays) or being better candidates for accessibility (Hoyt Street, Borough Hall).

Sigh.

Downtown side: remove the token booth and install two elevators.

OR...remove the stairway to Nevins Street and replace it with a ramp to a single elevator - or remove the southern staircase and replace it with a ramp or one of those escalators with no steps like at DeGaulle airport.

Uptown side: repeat.

 

#DONE

 

[Lex]

8 hours ago, Deucey said:

Sigh.

Downtown side: remove the token booth and install two elevators.

OR...remove the stairway to Nevins Street and replace it with a ramp to a single elevator - or remove the southern staircase and replace it with a ramp or one of those escalators with no steps like at DeGaulle airport.

Uptown side: repeat.

 

#DONE

 

Because we totally have adequate space for that...

[Wallyhorse]

21 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

That doesn't mean that it's impossible. There are several station that could just simply be expanded and you can slap some elevators there. 

Agree.  One example is my old home station on the  at 77th Street.  You could build new entrances at 76th Street and include wheelchair entrances there,

19 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

"It was difficult because people were shitty"

That doesn't make it difficult, that just makes it not a consideration, which are two wholly separate things. The IND had no problem literally digging around and under an active subway and el, so if they cared enough they would've been able to do it.

The point is. attitudes as a whole were like that.  People then didn't (and even now, some still don't) think of the disabled the way many do now.  It also never occurred to them such elevators would have been very useful for MANY other reasons that have ZERO to do with people with disabilities.

[Deucey]

14 hours ago, Lex said:

Because we totally have adequate space for that...

The space is there. Just requires some creativity. And  has plenty of it given how creative they are with service cuts and cooking the books.

[Lex]

5 minutes ago, Deucey said:

The space is there. Just requires some creativity. And  has plenty of it given how creative they are with service cuts and cooking the books.

The staircases we have now (from the street to fare control) barely count as adequate. There's not enough space below for them to be any wider, as the "mezzanines" hang low enough to give the trains a shave. (You can see this just by standing underneath while a train is in the station.) Ramps need far more space as it is, and ADA-compliant ramps need even more than those that would be used to get boxes off of a moving truck (assuming it had been extended to cover the same height).

 

As for having elevators, they would still need to have fare control, so they can only be implemented as replacements for the staircases between fare control and the platforms (which wouldn't make much sense, given the necessary evil of how fare control is set up). The only way to rectify a deficiency created in 1905 is to make the station deeper, but the impact such an endeavor would have isn't worth the expense, especially with nearby stations and buses being accessible. (Perhaps it would be somewhat easier without the IND...)

[R68OnBroadway]

Does someone have a video to see how Nevins looks from the street to platforms?

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Does someone have a video to see how Nevins looks from the street to platforms?

I was just there. You could take the Nevins Street-side staircase and put one elevator there, then another from the platform staircase; or start a long ramp from somewhere near the corner, and then take out the platform staircase to put the elevator in. It’d be a smaller fare control but it could be done.

The uptown side would be much harder.

[4 via Mosholu]

I would say that the Independent Railroad was a futuristic rapid transit railroad. They set up their stations to be able to accommodate elevator installations. The Interborough Rapid Transit and the Brooklyn Manhattan Transit did not think about elevators until later.

[Yankees4life]

Indeed, there needs to be more ADA compliant stations. MTA has pissed away a lot of time and money throughout the years for other shit but not this one...

[T to Dyre Avenue]

8 hours ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

I would say that the Independent Railroad was a futuristic rapid transit railroad. They set up their stations to be able to accommodate elevator installations. The Interborough Rapid Transit and the Brooklyn Manhattan Transit did not think about elevators until later.

I don’t know if they set up the stations to accommodate elevator installations. I don’t think they were even thinking about that back in the 1920s-40s, when most of the IND stations were built. Yes, more of the IND stations do have mezzanines and perfectly straight platforms that can better accommodate elevators versus the IRT and BMT stations. So the IND stations, especially the Queens Blvd and Fulton Street ones would be excellent places to start. Concourse too; it’s criminal just how few stations in The Bronx are ADA-compliant. 

1 hour ago, Yankees4life said:

Indeed, there needs to be more ADA compliant stations. MTA has pissed away a lot of time and money throughout the years for other shit but not this one...

Agree fully. The sad part is that even where they did install ADA elevators, like at 71st-Continental Avenue, the construction took a very long time and caused very much inconvenience to pedestrian traffic both above and below ground. It shouldn’t have to be that way, especially if the stations have ginormous mezzanines, like 71st does. Speaking of the QBL, there too, was another blown opportunity to bring a sizable portion of the system into compliance with ADA.

Edited May 29, 2019 by T to Dyre Avenue

[R68OnBroadway]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 it’s criminal just how few stations in The Bronx are ADA-compliant. 

Jamaica and the lines to CI too...

Also, the fact that they pretty much rebuilt all of Culver and Astoria and didn’t add elevators is also annoying. 

As for the IND, they could easily add elevators within closed mezzanines (Nostrand  would be great). Platforms may be a bit more difficult but manageable.

[Lex]

14 hours ago, Deucey said:

I was just there. You could take the Nevins Street-side staircase and put one elevator there, then another from the platform staircase; or start a long ramp from somewhere near the corner, and then take out the platform staircase to put the elevator in. It’d be a smaller fare control but it could be done.

The uptown side would be much harder.

And what, pray tell, would it be anchored to?

[kosciusko]

On 5/23/2019 at 10:42 PM, Lex said:

I mean, the statement isn't entirely without merit. Just look at how Nevins Street was built.

Elevators aren't the only way to make a station ADA accessible

 

[JeremiahC99]

32 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Elevators aren't the only way to make a station ADA accessible

 

How much would that cost per station and stairway?

[Lex]

19 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Elevators aren't the only way to make a station ADA accessible

 

As I've stated earlier, the staircases between the street and fare control barely count as adequate. They're narrow because trying to make them any wider is impossible (trains would be shaved, and said staircases are hugging the curb). Adding this would be utterly foolish, as the need is to get people between the street and the trains as efficiently as possible (while passing through fare control).

[R68OnBroadway]

20 minutes ago, Lex said:

As I've stated earlier, the staircases between the street and fare control barely count as adequate. They're narrow because trying to make them any wider is impossible (trains would be shaved, and said staircases are hugging the curb). Adding this would be utterly foolish, as the need is to get people between the street and the trains as efficiently as possible (while passing through fare control).

So what else do we do? We can't add elevators since you say they are too difficult to add so we have to add something.

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

Adding this would be utterly foolish, as the need is to get people between the street and the trains as efficiently as possible (while passing through fare control).

I honestly don't know if that "acorn stairlift" type thing will work, but I will say that if it did, it likely wouldn't be going in a super high ridership station that demands that people must get through it as quickly as possible. This would belong in a smaller to moderate station whose area (population wise) is little served by accessibility, where it could have it's uses as people don't need to move too efficiently. Anything bigger than that, and the elevators the way to go, no debate there.

Edited May 30, 2019 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[R68OnBroadway]

38 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

I honestly don't know if that "acorn stairlift" type thing will work, but I will say that if it did, it likely wouldn't be going in a super high ridership station that demands that people must get through it as quickly as possible. This would belong in a smaller to moderate station whose area (population wise) is little served by accessibility, where it could have it's uses as people don't need to move too efficiently. Anything bigger than that, and the elevators the way to go, no debate there.

I wouldn't see this being used at stop with high traffic levels, but I could see it at stops that are difficult to add elevators to and/or have low ridership (ex. Courtleyou/Beverly Rd stations and the Rockaways).