Archive for January, 2011
Jan
20
Efficient Riding: How we find seats on the subway
Posted by: | Comments
It's easy to find a seat when all of them are empty. (Photo by flickr user bitchcakesny)
Finding a seat on the subway during rush hour can often seem like a fool’s errand. Some trains fill up so quickly and are so packed with people that it’s impossible to imagine a time where seats are plentiful and space bountiful. Yet, at other times, trains seem to carry an imbalance of people. The front is empty while the back is not or the middle has fewer people than the ends. Why?
In this week’s issue of Time Out New York, I help explore that question. The theme of the issue is 200 things you didn’t know about New York, and they include an extensive section on navigating the subways like a pro. I spoke with reporter Celia Shatzman, and we covered a variety of subway-based topics. I spoke on abandoned stations, tips for minimize wait times late at night and some subway etiquette no-no’s.
My favorite question though concerned the tried-and-true seat. What cars, asked Shatzman, tend to be emptier and what’s the best way to score a seat? David Holland from Transit Blogger, Tom Sibley of Subway Douchery fame and I gave the answer:
Know the flow of ridership patterns and locations. Benjamin Kabak is the blogger behind Second Avenue Sagas, which has tracked the progress of the Second Avenue subway and other transit news since 2006. He explains that because of the way entrances are staggered, back cars are less full. To get a seat, try to board at a major transfer point, where people tend to exit en masse. David Holland, who runs Transit Blogger, recommends looking for wear and tear on the edges of platforms, near the tracks—this allows you to guess where the doors will open, so you can swoop in quickly and grab a seat. “There are certain spots that will stand out, because [the doors on] each train open in practically the same spot every time,” he explains. “The repeated foot traffic will eventually leave marks.”And if all else fails? “Start coughing,” suggests comedian Tom Sibley, the guy behind Subway Douchery. “It makes people nervous. They’ll be too worried about getting whatever disease they are certain you have to grab the empty seat.”
Unfortunately, due to the demands of space, I couldn’t elaborate much on the differences between train lines and original systems, but something as simple as station design at one end of the train can impact the way trains load throughout the route. Take, for instance, the IND stations built after the IRT and BMT systems. The IND stations are three-block behemoths that make room for long cars with lots of room, but a design quirk means that trains fill up at the ends and not in the middle.
Placing entrances are opposite ends of a station can create passenger bunching on the platforms. Shown here is the IND's W. 4th St. station.
That quirk is one of convenience. Most — but not all — of the IND stations have entrances at the northern and southern ends of their platforms but not in between. At 14th St. on 6th Ave., for instance, passengers can enter at 16th St. or 14th St. At West 4th St., riders board at 3rd St. or closer to 8th St. At Bryant Park, passengers are funneled underground at one end of the park or the other. Thus, it’s possible to find more space, if not an errant seat or two, in the middle of the IND trains at certain stations.
Meanwhile, the designs of IRT and BMT stations seem to spread straphangers out through the natural flow. Take, for instance, a 1 train going south from 96th St. At the express stop there, the station entrances are at the extreme ends of the train, but at 86th and 79th Sts., the entrances are a few cars from the front. At 72nd St., with the new stationhouse, passengers can board at various points along the train, and 66th and 59th Sts. have multiple egress points at opposite ends of the platform. (For what it’s worth, the Phase 1 Second Ave. Subway stations will naturally push passengers to either the front or the back of the trains.)
Of course, this is a simplified look at the boarding process. Generally, people board their trains in the morning, as the popular mobile app Exit Strategy has noted, based upon where they have to get off. If the train isn’t there, straphangers will walk to the car closest to their exit even if seats are harder to come by. I know my B train is emptier at the front of the train, but I’d rather save the two minutes walking from the 7th Ave. entrance to the back car for my exit at West 4th St.
The trick then is to know the hot spots. I know that my train empties out at De Kalb Ave. as workers bound for the hospital there, Long Island University’s Brooklyn campus or Downtown Brooklyn head to work. If I’m quick, I can nab a seat, and if not, I can find space to move in the car. As veteran riders know, it’s all about the flow of passengers. If you ride long enough, you’ll find a seat, and you’ll know just when it’s going to open up.
Jan
19
A plan to bring taxi service to the outer boroughs
Posted by: | Comments
I moved to Brooklyn in 2006 after spending my youth in Manhattan. When it comes to cabs, I never realized how good Manhattanites have it until landing an in outer borough, and while I rarely rely on a taxi to get around the city, when I do, I find myself fearing the confrontation. Cabbies who pick up fares in Manhattan begrudgingly go to Park Slope and often don’t know the way. Even cabs in other parts of Brooklyn prefer a return ride to Manhattan that a quick jaunt between neighborhoods, and now and then, I’ll have to restort to threats of a 311 call to get my legally required ride.
That could all change under a new plan unveiled by Mayor Bloomberg during his State of the City speech this afternoon. Bloomberg has proposed allowing the city’s fleet of car services and black cabs to pick up passengers who hail them. It is, in essence, legalizing an activity that has gone on under the table for years and would be entirely voluntary. In exchange for this ability to pick up fares though, these car services would have to adopt a metered fare system and opt in to the city’s credit card cab program.
The basic details are straightforward enough. Later this year, the Taxi & Limousine Commission will issue its proposed guidelines, but the mayor said the program will be in place outside of Manhattan. He noted that while 95 percent of cab riders are picked up in Manhattan or the airports, 80 percent of New Yorkers live in the outer boroughs. It is high time, he said, for those residents to be able to get reliable cab service.
“It will give New Yorkers in all five boroughs another safe, reliable and convenient option for getting around. Because whether you’re standing on 42nd Street in Manhattan, or 42nd Street in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, or 42nd Street in Sunnyside, Queens, you ought to be able to hail a cab,” the mayor said during his speech in Staten Island.
The Gotham Gazette has already plunged into the issue, and they offer up their instant analysis. Included in the piece is feedback from the New York Taxi Workers Alliance. Already, those who organize yellow cab drivers feel threatened. “Legalizing an illegal activity because it’s been done for so long will immediately cut into fares, especially during the rush hours when yellow cab drivers who live in the outer boroughs pick up fares at the beginning or end of their shifts,” Bhairavi Desai said. “As liveries bring more riders into Manhattan, what guarantee do we have that the city will stop the illegal activities in Manhattan or the airports? Already, the city has turned a blind eye on such activity throughout Manhattan and the airports, which cuts deep into taxi driver incomes. This is a slippery slope with long-term implications.”
The problem though with the TWA is their willingness to turn a blind eye to other illegal activities. A cab driver must not refuse a fare to any destination within the five boroughs, but as I mentioned, I’ve had to restort to threats of a phone call to get my passage out of Manhattan. I know I’m not alone in that regard either. Many cab drivers won’t allow Brooklyn-, Queens- or Bronx-bound passengers into their cars and are openly hostile to those who leave the five boroughs. Bloomberg’s plan simply puts the rest of us on a better footing when it comes to cabs.
Livery cab owners feel that this move might cut into their business as well, and the opt-in nature of it doesn’t appeal to everyone. Still, no matter the future of this program, it highlights the inherent tensions between yellow cab drivers, the Taxi & Limousine Commission and the Mayor’s Office. David Yassky, the current TLC commission, is a Brooklynite through and through, and he knows the system needs fixing. Bloomberg’s plan could reform the taxi industry, and as taxi service spreads throughout the city, it could lead to fewer private cars on the road. That would be a forward transportation step indeed.
Jan
19
Four months in, SBS service earns its praise
Posted by: | CommentsWhen Select Bus Service debuted along 1st and 2nd Avenues in early October, it had a rocky beginning especially in the press. East Siders couldn’t come to terms with the changes to their painfully slow local bus routes, and the media found faults with the new service from Day One.
Now that the East Side SBS has been on the road for four months, both East Siders and the city’s transit reporters are coming around to the new service. I’ve received numerous emails from riders who love the increased speeds and want to see this service elsewhere around the city, and in today’s Daily News, Pete Donohue praises the service. Although he references the “bumpy start,” which might be more a creation of the media than a reality on the ground, he notes that bus travel times have improved by 12-16 minutes or nearly 20 percent. Only Second Ave. Subway construction work (and the lack of truly dedicated lanes) is an impediment to even faster travel.
The MTA and NYC Department of Transportation offered up some statistics. Northbound travel from South Ferry to 126th st. now takes 62 minutes instead of 75 while southbound trips during rush hour can last 76 minutes instead of 88. The NYPD, meanwhile, has handed out 15,200 summonses to bus-lane violators, and 156 cars have been towed. When signal prioritization goes online this year, the trips should be even smoother. “The success of these first corridors in reducing travel times shows the enormous potential that exists if we can put ideas into play across the city,” Transit head Thomas Prendergast said.
Jan
19
Schumer: We must continue to build
Posted by: | Comments
It’s safe to say that Chuck Schumer and Chris Christie aren’t friends. As I explored, New York’s senior senator had some choice words for the New Jersey governor at a Crain’s Breakfast yesterday. Amidst a speech about the need to invest in the region’s infrastructure, the senator slammed Christie for canceling the ARC Tunnel and setting back the region’s progress. It is, by now, a familiar refrain.
But while Schumer’s fight with his cross-Hudson, cross-aisle rival made headlines, the rest of his speech is worthy of attention to. His summed up his focus thusly: “It has been one of the particular geniuses of New York going back centuries that we have always recognized the importance of investing in infrastructure, even when others did not.”
Today, it might seem a bit unwieldy to praise our infrastructure efforts. New York’s subway system and road network are not in the best of shape, and the advancements we’re making seem, like the Second Ave. Subway, costly or, like the 7 Line extension, misguided at best. Still, Schumer praised even these small signs of forward movement. “On the Upper East Side, the Second Avenue subway is finally becoming a reality,” he said. “Although progress remains slower than we would like, the fact that we are in the ground and actually moving ahead after eighty years of discussion and abortive starts is a great achievement…Ultimately, when all four phases of the Second Avenue Subway are completed, we will be improving the commute of over half a million riders every day.”
During the speech, Schumer spoke at length about the why of it all. “Without increased capacity, Manhattan, and the surrounding areas that depend on it, would stop growing. Our competitive advantage would become a disadvantage if something was not done,” he said while touting the benefits of the East Side Access plan.
After slamming Christie’s decision as the moment when “the region stopped looking toward the future,” Schumer let loose his litany of desired improvements. He wants New York to embrace high-speed rail; he wants a one-seat ride to Laguardia; he wants to make sure our region’s over-taxed airports can meet the demands of travel in 2011. “For New York to continue to thrive in the 21st century, we must continue to make major investments in its transportation system,” he said. “These are the projects which will fuel the region’s economic growth for the coming decades.”
With a rhetorical flourish, he ended where one would expect him to end. “In today’s competitive global economy,” he said, “to stand still is to fall further and further behind. We cannot let that happen.”
It all sounds good. Schumer has always had a knack for saying the right things, but his actions over the years have spoken louder than words. He might talk about investing in infrastructure, and he might deliver federal grants now and then. He was certainly instrumental in getting the Second Ave. Subway off the drawing board and into the ground, but his leadership on most transit issues has been mostly non-existent/
What Schumer hasn’t done for New York and its infrastructure is substantial. He didn’t lead an effort to secure emergency federal funds to help transit authorities ease operating deficits and avoid criplping fare hikes and service cuts. He hasn’t played a role in ensuring that the MTA is adequately funded, that a congestion pricing funding scheme passed through Albany or that the MTA’s current $10 billion capital budget hole is closed.
New York City and its subway system won’t sink if Schumer neglects it or continues his laissez-faire approach to transit. Furthermore, many of these issues are far more relevant at the state level than in Congress, but with the largest transit-riding constituency in the country. Schumer should be doing more. This year, facing capital needs and a hazy operations outlook, the MTA needs all the help it can get, and New York’s powerful senator should be able to deliver.
Jan
18
ARC Fallout: Schumer v. Christie
Posted by: | Comments
New York needs the ARC Tunnel too.
Charles Schumer, my neighbor and the senior senator from the great state of New York, took to the stage this morning at Crain’s breakfast forum. His topic concerned the city’s aging public transportation infrastructure and the need to expand the system within the city’s five boroughs and improve interconnectedness outside of it. I’ll tackle what he did and didn’t say about the MTA later, but for now, let’s look at Schumer’s choice words for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
As the Senator touted New York’s investment in rail, he spoke at length about the East Side Access project, the Second Ave. Subway and the 7 line extension. These three efforts are the MTA’s key capital projects and are all supported by federal dollars to one extent or another. New Jersey though has earned Schumer’s ire.
To open his talk on Christie, Schumer did not mince words. “Though I am extremely sympathetic to the fiscal problems Governor Christie clearly faces and I recognize there are not easy choices to make,” he said, “I believe pulling the plug on ARC was a terrible, terrible decision.”
Schumer touting the ARC Tunnel job creation numbers and the “starkly evident” traffic mitigation impact the tunnel would have had. He spoke of the RPA study that showed how ARC would raise property values throughout New Jersey and how we must improve connections westward as well as eastward.
Yet, his strongest words were reserved for Christie’s current political machinations. The New Jersey governor is making a play to grab the ARC money to help cover his state’s budget gap, and Schumer fears for the future. I’ll quote at length:
Governor Christie, faced with very real and very difficult budget decisions, has turned to the Port Authority, and the money that was originally dedicated to the ARC project. While I would certainly support using the funding the Port Authority had committed to ARC to extend the 7 train to New Jersey, I do not think it is appropriate to use Port Authority funds for what are essentially maintenance projects.
Governor Christie’s proposed idea that $1.8 billion of what was originally committed by the Port Authority for the ARC for other projects is to compound one mistake with another, perhaps even a greater one. These are smaller projects aimed at maintaining existing roadways that would otherwise be funded with New Jersey transportation dollars. In essence, the Governor wants the Port Authority to help fill his budget gap…Asking the Port Authority to take capital funds and redirect them on this scale, a scale never before contemplated, would be a mistake that rivals, and perhaps even surpasses the cancellation of the ARC tunnel as a risk to our region’s future.
It could well begin the cannibalization of Port Authority dollars and could mark the beginning of the end of the long-term ability of our region to respond to its major transportation needs. The Port Authority as an agency has always been committed to the long-term, the future, to building out the infrastructure of the region so that we can accommodate future growth. While it is a creature of politics, and certainly not immune to them, it has also managed to retain over its history an independence that has served the entire region. Because it has dedicated revenue stream, the Port Authority has been able to plan and complete projects, regardless of the momentary crises that the states themselves have sometimes faced. We cannot allow the agency to be cannibalized in order to solve short term budget problems, however acute. Following New Jersey’s lead, New York could well request the Port Authority to provide dollars for similar repairs, like fixing the Belt Parkway. And were this to become the norm, then where would be? If we allow the Port Authority to be turned into a rainy day fund, used year to year to fill gaps, or if we allow it to become a bank of last resort to make up for shortfalls, it’s the end of the agency as we know it, and of its ability to fulfill its function, which is to support the future economic growth of the region.
Christie, through a spokesman, fired back later this afternoon. “Where was the senior senator from New York with funding alternatives to a project that was predicted to run billions over projections – all of which were to be borne by New Jersey and its taxpayers?” Michael Drewniak said. “This was a ‘bi-state’ project for which Senator Schumer’s state and the federal government were set to pay zero, zilch, nothing for the cost overruns. We can live with the criticism while protecting taxpayers from this boondoggle, which was simply a bad deal for New Jersey.”
Of course, Christie never tried to work out a funding agreement on cost overruns with New York, the feds or anyone. He simply pulled the plug and tried to keep the federal dollars. He’s shown no willingness to respond to Mayor Bloomberg’s pie-in-the-sky proposal to extend the 7 line to Seacaucus and now wants to use dedicated ARC dollars to cover the Transportation Trust Fund’s sinking budget.
Ultimately, New York and New Jersey will have to work together to address these cross-Hudson concerns. New York, through the Port Authority, was footing some of the ARC costs, but the state will likely need to come up with more to make a project work. Yet, Christie should not be playing fast and loose with the Port Authority money. As Schumer said, “There are too many important current projects on the Port Authority’s plate…for us to allow it to be diverted from its core mission. Nothing less than the future of the agency and the future of our region are at stake.”
Jan
18
The subways: a breeding ground or a natural vaccine?
Posted by: | CommentsAs winter descends upon New York, it often seems as though half of the city walks around with the sniffles. Anecdotally, I’ve always thought the subways help contribute to the spread of germs in New York City. Straphangers cough and sneeze with little regard for manners, and subway poles are the third-rail equivalent of a germ conductor. Touch at your own risk during the winter.
Today, the Daily News briefly highlights a British study that confirms as much. Per David Goldiner, “public transit riders are six times more likely to suffer from acute respiratory infections – and occasional riders are most at risk.” Of the 138 patients who participated in the study, those who rode a bus or a train were far more likely to get sick than those who did not, but those who ride frequently built up a natural defense against the germs found on public transit. I’ll continue to cough or sneeze into my sleeve and avoid too much skin-to-surface contact while riding the rails.
Jan
18
The MTA, the City Council and snow
Posted by: | Comments
The MTA is still trying to dig itself out from under the metaphorical snow left in the wake of its failed blizzard response. (Photo courtesy of MTA)
No body of legislators and politicians has perfected outraged hindsight better than the New York City Council. Tasked with providing a check against the mayor and granted oversight powers over city agencies, the City Council can’t press too hard on the MTA, a state authority that derives its power from Albany, but it can make New York City Transit Authority leaders squirm. That’s just what the Council did on Friday.
For five hours on Friday, stretching past lunch and into the afternoon, City Council members used their lofty committee perches to rake Transit officials over the fire. Even though The Times and The Daily News had complete post mortems a few days after the snow, the City Council had to hear it from the horses’ mouths themselves, and the Council members had to make sure they looked appropriately outraged and disappointed for the cameras. All around, it was a giant mess.
For their part, Transit officials didn’t put on a show, but we already know how badly they messed up. We know that they opted to put the agency on a low-level Plan 1 footing on Thursday morning before Christmas Eve. We know, even as the forecast worsened, that they didn’t ramp up their staffing and procedures to Plan 4 until well after the forecast changed late Saturday afternoon and snow began to fall on Sunday. We know about trains that were stuck near Howard Beach and the deeper reaches of Brooklyn, about buses that were dispatched without chains and were stranded in the snow-covered streets. We know the MTA didn’t have a situation room or a centralized command structure in place for such a storm that weekend.
Yet, despite this knowledge, the Transit officials under the gun didn’t have answers. Transit president Thomas Prendergast said that his men “forgot” about the A train stuck at Howard Beach and had no evacuation plan once streets became impassable. The agency didn’t ready a situation room, and Prendersgast simply said, “The fact that it fell out of practice is a serious deficiency.” He didn’t know how much the storm cost the authority and said that no one had been fired or demoted yet as Transit is still conducting its own review. “We were lulled into a false sense of security on our own,” he said of the unexpected accumulation from the storm. “Nobody led us into that.”
Often, Prendergast said he didn’t have detailed answers for the Council members because his staff had been preparing for subsequent winter storms. He also reiterated what MTA sources have told me: Concerns over overtime costs played no role in the MTA’s decision to call in extra employees to respond to the storm. When deemed appropriate due to snow fall, Transit moved to a Plan 4 footing and paid no heed to the staffing costs. After all, weather contingencies are a part of the MTA budget.
Ultimately Prendergast issued his own mea culpa. “We failed during the blizzard and this is an apology on our part due to that failure,” he said.
The City Council, of course, didn’t take to Predergast, his team or his apology. The outrage ran the gamut from a call to the Governor to remove Prendergast from Transit to a clear attempt to blame Transit for the city’s own failures. It was hindsight at its finest. “Today was an abject failure,” Council Speaker Christine Quinn said of the hearings. “I was shocked by the performance of the transit leaders, the folks from the MTA at today’s oversight hearing. It really left me not feeling any greater level of confidence that the MTA can handle the next storm.”
Quinn, who called Transit’s responses “beyond shocking,” had more to say: “All you had to do was open up the blinds and see that the snow was falling. Blizzards don’t happen every week, but it’s not like a swarm of locusts came into New York or something we’ve never seen.”
She wasn’t alone in condemning Transit. David Greenfield, a councilman from Brooklyn’s District 44 who has been dubbed “Kvetch” by former Streetsblog editor Aaron Naparstek due to his ability to complain about literally everything, was live-blogging the hearing via his Twitter account. He comes across as simply a complainer looking to score easy political points and didn’t accept Transit’s words.
When union leaders testified that the MTA did indeed have overtime costs in mind when they didn’t call a Plan 4, Greenfield lapped it up like a good political puppy. It doesn’t matter if the TWU and ATU officials who spoke had first-hand knowledge of the response; if the MTA said it, Greenfield won’t accepted it. “Sadly, I am not surprised,” he said after the hearings. “The MTA is broken. I believe that in order to keep this city moving forward we have to stop accepting excuses and overhaul the structure of the MTA.”
Letitia James, who never met an MTA hearing she couldn’t exploit for personal gain, used her time in the sun to rail against the late December fare hikes. “You failed us and should not have raised your fares on December 29,” she said. Because of a poor response to the blizzard, the MTA should not have raised its fares to address a potential $400 million budget gap. In the world of the City Council that makes perfect sense.
Ultimately, everyone lost. New Yorkers lost when Transit was ill prepared for the biggest storm of the winter. Transit officials lost the little faith they had from the City Council and straphangers. Transit officials may also, as Nicole Gelinas wrote, lost a chit in their upcoming labor battle as well.
But the City Council came out looking petty and kvetchy. They have perfected the time-honored tradition of complaining about subway service but offered no solutions. Should Transit have dumped passengers off the A train in Howard Beach and let them fend for themselves? What should the proper blizzard response team look like? How would the City Council prefer to see the subways run? These are questions that have to be answered if New York is to move forward with better transit.
It will snow again this winter. We’ll get another big storm, and the MTA will be tested. It won’t be Christmas Eve, and Transit won’t be blindsided by mounting drifts. Will the Council accepted an improved response or still find reasons to complain?
Jan
17
Photo of the Day: At 50th St., a passageway reopens
Posted by: | Comments
What: A reopened passageway outside of fare control that connects the southbound 1 train at 50th St. and Broadway with the northbound C and E station at 50th St. and 8th Ave.
Where: This photo, snapped last week by NYC Transit Forums member R33WF, was taken from the 8th Ave. end of the tunnel.
Once upon a time, as I wrote last April, numerous passageways within the subway system provided for inter-station transfers. Most of these passageways were outside of the fare control area — meaning that the transfers weren’t free — and many were operated by building management companies and other private entities. After a spate of high-profile sexual assaults in the early 1990s, the police asked the MTA to shutter these passageways, and many were lost to time.
A few weeks ago, the Paramount Group Management Company decided to reopen the tunnel between Broadway and 8th Ave. on 50th St., according to the MTA. The passageway is now open from 6 a.m. – 7 p.m. during the week and is closed on Saturdays and Sundays. When it reopened, it still featured evidence of the dearly departed 9 train, giving us all a since of just how long it has been since passengers had walked through the tunnel. It’s good to see unused infrastructure being reactivated for the convenience of pedestrians looking to avoid the madhouse of Times Square.
On another note, I’m taking a light day of posting for Martin Luther King Day. I’ll be back tomorrow with a full slate of posts, including a post mortem on the MTA’s December 2010 blizzard response.
Jan
16
Video of the Day: The Free Swipe Movement
Posted by: | CommentsVia NYC The Blog comes this news clip from the TV station Russia Today. In it, reporter Lauren Lyster tracks down people who are giving away free swipes on their MetroCards to stage an economic protest against the MTA. The one person Lyster tracked down who went by the name of Ollie is speaking in clear class-protest terms, but many lower class neighbors pool resources to buy unlimited cards to save cash.
The MTA says this behavior isn’t illegal as long as people aren’t selling swipes, but Daily Intel’s Chris Rovzar calls this a “moronic protest.” I think he’s onto something. Looking at the Free Swipe Movement’s Facebook page, Rovzar levels his indictment:
you should be on the lookout for a person “standing by the turnstile making a swiping motion.” You’ve likely seen people doing that, or heard the ones who flat-out just ask for a swipe. How often are they the type of people who look like they need the swipe in order to commute to and from work? Or, on the other hand, how often are they the type of young, entitled people who would know about this system from joining a Facebook group?
But that’s beside the point. My opinion is admittedly 100 percent biased by the people I see try to pull this move at the First Avenue L station. Perhaps I’d see a more noble slice of humanity if I commuted from somewhere that wasn’t the exact spot where the East Village and Williamsburg intersect. Here’s the real problem: The reason these fare hikes happened was because the MTA is broke. How, exactly, is cutting into the MTA’s earnings supposed to fix the situation and prevent further hikes? When you hand out your expensive swipes, are you really “sticking it to the man”? Or are you “sticking it” somewhere else, maybe a little bit closer to where you wear your messenger bag?
The problem is, as always, one of public trust. The general public doesn’t believe the MTA can be broke, and thus, they think mismanagement and corruption are responsible for the fare hikes. They don’t believe that state representatives, who stole $143 million from the MTA but also bash the authority, are wrong. So this protest will hurt only the riders who claim to be protesting. It’s a good idea gone bad.
Jan
15
Are the subways too quiet?
Posted by: | Comments
A woman fiddles with her all-too-ubiquitous iPod earbuds. (Photo by flickr user Ed Yourdon)
When thinking about the New York City subway, “quiet” isn’t the first word that comes to mind. Brakes squeal with friction, public address systems screech with feedback and heating systems drone on and on and on. Inside the car, sounds filters from all corners. Music leaks from poorly designed iPod headphones; cell phones blare. It isn’t loud, but it’s an annoying cacophony of noise.
But are the cars missing the right kind of noise? In a guest column in the Daily News, Alex Marshall of the RPA makes exactly that argument. The subways, he says, are not filled with the right kind of social noise. He writes of a time when people would talk to strangers and each other on subway cars. Today, we bury our noises in Kindles and hide behind headphones.
Picking up the thread from the brouhaha over the New Jersey Transit quiet cars, Marshall says an element of old New York is lost as people turn away from each other and toward technology. He presents what he calls a modest proposal: The Conversation Car.
In this train car (or bus section) one would be assured, upon entering, that fellow passengers are ready and willing to chat. Putting speakers against your ears or a screen in front of your face would earn frowns as severe as those now cast at someone who conducts a business call in a Quiet Car.
This would, first of all, help in some measure to restore the dying art of conversation – especially the spontaneous kind, when you haven’t already prepared your stock answers about all matters mundane. And it would also restore that measure of accidental contact for which New York is famous. After all, the person jammed next to you could be from Sweden. Or from Queens. Or a Swedish queen. But if you’re just zonked out on your iPhone, you’ll never know.
There will be some rules in my proposed Conversation Car: no insults (hard for some New Yorkers, I know), no overly aggressive come ons, no street preacher crazy talk. Just ordinary people enjoying incidental, temporary company instead of plugging in and tuning out.
A dose of conversation might just be the new, much-needed antidote to our solitary digital domains.
I have to wonder if the idea of spontaneous conversation on the subway is one of those overly sentimental appeals to a nostalgia that never happened. On very rare occasions have I struck up conversations with strangers in a subway train, and most people would rather be left alone as they ride home. For decades, most straphangers didn’t even feel safe enough making eye contact with others in their subway cars, and skeptical New Yorkers of a certain age still avoid staring in the subways.
Still, Marshall’s bigger point is one I’ve focused on over the years. There is a certain level of etiquette entirely missing from underground. Maybe if we talked to each other, we’d remember that our fellow riders are people like us too. It’s rude to assault a subway car with sounds for your personal MP3 player, and it’s rude to drop half-eaten food on the floor. That’s a lesson we can learn without attempting to strike up an awkward conversation with someone who probably doesn’t want to talk anyway.
