I’ll let you decide if this one belongs in the “New York politicians will complain about anything” category, but listen: Even though it’s illegal to move between subway cars, one New York City Council member is calling upon the MTA to unlock the end doors on all subway cars. After fielding complaints from constituents supposedly trapped in subway cars as fights between teenagers broke out, Letitia James has put forth a resolution demanding the MTA unlock the doors on all 75-foot train cars. “They had nowhere to escape,” James said of her fearful constituents. “Riders need a place to run to safety, and right now there’s no way to do that.”
James’ legislation, numbered Res 0582-2010, has the support of five other council members and reads without much force behind it and seems to rely on circular logic. It reads, in part:
Whereas, The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) enacted a rule in 2005, which states that “No person may use the end doors of a subway car to pass from one subway car to another except in an emergency or when directed to do so by an Authority conductor or a New York City police officer;” and
Whereas, This rule was enacted in order to ensure the safety of subway riders, especially during a time when the threat of terrorism has significantly heightened; andWhereas, The MTA also claims that these doors are locked to prevent passenger injuries or fatalities as a result of falling between subway cars, however, passenger injuries or fatalities are extremely rare according to the New York Times; and
Whereas, The MTA New York City Transit website states that most subway accidents result from slips, trips, and falls on stairways when someone is in a rush; and
Whereas, Although the MTA made the decision to lock the end doors of a subway car for the purpose of protecting the public, locking these doors might serve as a detriment to public safety because passengers would not be able to escape in the event of an emergency or any other potentially dangerous situation in which one’s safety might be threatened, especially during non-rush hours; and
Whereas, Passengers, particularly women, fear being trapped in a locked car with a suspicious individual that may pose a threat to them; and
Whereas, When passengers believe that they are left with no option other than to ride a train and wait for it arrive at the next station stop before they can exit a car in which they feel vulnerable, the policy of locking the end doors of a subway car should be reconsidered.
Ultimately, the City Council, if it approves this bill, would “call upon” the MTA to unlock the doors because they find it “imperative” for the authority to do so in the name of safety.
In a short statement to The Post, Transit spokesman Charles Seaton defended locking the doors. “When these trains negotiate curves or travel over switches, large gaps are created between the cars’ end, creating an extremely hazardous situation,” he said. It is, essentially, safety on one end vs. safety on the other, and it strikes me here that James is overreacting to one concern without heeding the other.
36 comments
I’m with her. Don’t rush between cars but travel carefully to the next one to escape certain situations. Crossing the bridge while on the Q may not be the time I’d do that unless I was fearful of my life. But who hasn’t felt threatened while on the train?
It would be nice if council members could be held personally liable if they pass this bill, the first time someone tries to walk between the cars of an R-46 R train headed north out of Cortlandt Street towards City Hall (I wasn’t in favor of the original ban on moving between cars on the IRT and on the 60-foot BMT/IND cars, but if the Council issues a blanket ruling to allow passage between all cars, you know what’s going to happen and you know who’s going to get sued, and it’s not going to be Letitia James).
I have seen fights move through three cars, while the train is in motion, in the IRT. I’ve also seen people chased through the train. This was on redbirds and R-62s. Tech trains not so much, the doors are more awkward to open. My gut tells me that removing the ban on walking between cars will lead to a rise in crime. Unlocking the doors on 75fters will definately lead to more accidents.
some will fall out of the car… oh just about every other day.
/no sarcasm here
darn you wireless keyboard —- someone will fall out of the car… oh just about every other day.
why not retrofit the 75 foot long cars to allow *passengers* to electrically unlock them like the motorman in case of an *emergency*…
rather then just leave them unlocked. —-
motorman would be notifies and door unlocked at same time.
problem solved ($ though)
Maybe retrofitting those cars with an alarm would be a good compromise. Remember the the 67 foot AB standards also always had their doors locked and no one ever complained abut that.
I totally want that alarm siren from the emergency exits being opened happening while I’m on the train!
This is the same pol who wanted to rename Hoyt Street for Michael Jackson. Populism at its worst.
Locking doors also makes it a little harder for panhandlers to move between cars.
Can’t have that.
Keep the doors unlocked. As long as the posted signs clearly state (graphically and in words) that it is dangerous to cross between cars of a moving train, and that those who pass between cars do so at their own risk, then the positives (escaping dangerous or threatening situations) outweigh the negatives (someone carelessly falling between cars). Keeping doors locked is an overreached response to an overly-litigous society. After all, McDonald’s now serves hot coffee in a cup with a warning about the beverage temperature, but they don’t put an ice cube in each cup.
It would seem technically possible, at least on the newer “high-tech” cars to have some sort of alarm that would alert the conductor to check on the situation (ideally with some camera). But on balance, injuries are extremely rare, and if it makes people more comfortable to know that they can escape a dangerous situation then why not unlock the doors.
I’ve walked between cars many times over the years to avoid the possibility of trouble. It’s pretty obnoxious that the TA won’t let us do that anymore.
Whereas, The MTA New York City Transit website states that most subway accidents result from slips, trips, and falls on stairways when someone is in a rush;
For the life of me I’m trying to figure out how this is relevant to the subject at hand. Did they copy and paste from an earlier decree and forget to take it out?
Circular logic. They’re claiming that since the MTA doesn’t say that accidents between cars are frequent, they should unlock the doors. Of course, accidents and injuries between cars aren’t frequent because the doors are kept locked.
The MTA is also guilty of using circular logic. If you ask them for a new bus route or extension to connect two places, their response is that no one goes there now. Of course the reason for that is that it is very difficult or nearly impossible to make the trip now, which is why few people do it and why the change is requested in the first place.
That aside, first she wanted it to be legal just to move between cars, which I agree with her on. However, there is a legitimate reason why the end doors are locked on 75 foot cars. She is also requesting that the first and last car end doors also be opened (although most have full length cabs) which I remember reading somewhere. Even if they didn’t, that would be extremely dangerous. Can’t believe she got others to sponsor her legislation.
She’s not asking for the first and last car end doors to be opened. As the text of the bill says, linked in the post, she wants the MTA to “unlock all doors between subway cars.” The outer two doors are not between subway cars.
What the MTA does with bus routing has no bearing Letitia James’ ridiculous posturing here.
I agree with you, but not everyone believes she is being ridiculous. Apparently, there are some who would rather risk falling between cars than being stabbed by a maniac.
And I do believe I read one article stating she did originally request the first and last cars be unlocked also so passengers could escape onto the tracks if they had to. Someone probably brought her to her senses and she did not put it in the legislation. (Unless the reporter or myself misunderstood. She may have not even realized the dangers of the third rail.)
“What the MTA does with bus routing has no bearing Letitia James’ ridiculous posturing here.”
True. I was just making the point that she is not the only one guilty of using circular logic.
There is already a mechanism to unlock those doors in an emergency manually. Thankfully, I have seen it done and would do it if I had to. However, those 75 footers have a lot of action between cars at speed. I would not cross between those cars for fun at all.
This proposed law is drafted like a narrative poem from the 2nd grade.
The real question in my mind is why doesn’t the MTA order articulated subway trains to make it safer to travel between cars? You can safely travel between cars on Metronorth and the LIRR, not to mention the Tube, Paris Metro, etc. – why not the subway? This isn’t a new problem and the solution seems pretty obvious.
In addition to cost concerns, I believe the problem with articulation are the curves. The B division has some sharp curves especially around DeKalb and in Lower Manhattan that make articulation trickier, if not impossible, to implement. It would be great for, say, the 1 train which runs a pretty straight route though.
NYCT isn’t going to order distinct cars for each line! The cars that run on the 1 have to fit on the rest of the IRT too. What happens when a train is rerouted to Brooklyn or through the South Ferry loop?
Do the cars that run on the 1 ever get used on the 2, 4, 5, or 6?
On a regular basis, no, but it happens from time to time. And 1 trains occasionally get rerouted elsewhere. If there’s a blockage at South Ferry, it would be nice if trains could get to the old loop. If there’s a blockage at Rector southbound, it would be nice if trains could get to Park Place. And if there’s a blockage at Rector northbound, it would be nice if trains already past Chambers could get to the East Side (via the old loop). Because if they can’t get rerouted, they have to stop and wait, and the rest of the line quickly grinds to a halt. One of the New York subway system’s greatest assets is its routing flexibility; we should think very hard before taking that away.
There are also temporary equipment moves and permanent car reassignments. The cars on the 6 and 7 will soon be swapped (to facilitate CBTC installation on the 7). Who says that the cars currently on the 1 will always be on the 1? There may be a reason to move cars around in 20 or 30 years.
Not to mention economies of scale. If we order special rolling stock for each route, it becomes ridiculously expensive.
Yeah, why don’t all subway car orders feature proper diaphragms/bridges, such as are used on Amtrak trains, and Metro-North, and the LIRR, etc. ?
It’s genuinely odd not to have an enclosed corridor between cars. This problem was solved 100 years ago. NYC Subway seems to simply have an antiquated view of how to design the ends of cars.
Articulation adds significantly to the current cost. Especially during decoupling for maintenance.
Providing the same increase in capacity by adding more trains is expensive, too.
At this point isn’t most of the system running with cars that allow walking between them? The entire IRT allows walking between cars as do the R143s/R160s on the EFJLMNQZ and the old (R32?) C trains… it’s really only the ABDGR we’re talking about here.
I have to say that without being able to walk between cars there arises a problem with emergencies, and none of these cars have intercoms like the newer cars. I’m a middle school teacher who was taking students down to Columbus Circle on the D from the Bronx. Just as the train left 125th, a group of teenagers decided to start harrassing my middle school students, and after one of my students responded it turned into them physically threatening my students. We were in the last car on the D. We had no way to alert a conductor of the problem to have police waiting for us. After the D slowly made its way to 59th street thanks to train congestion, we had our students stuck at the end of the platform cornered off while I ran for the conductor.
If they want to lock doors, give an intercom. Heaven forbid a major emergency develops on some of these lines while a train is stuck in congestion on an express track.
Ironically it’s the other way around; all cars with intercoms have unlocked doors.
Thinking about this, I expect the problem will go away as new cars are ordered. It was decided, I am told, that the 75-ft. cars were a mistake.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03.....crime.html
Moving between cars looking for victims is the preferred tactic of subway criminals. So unlocking the doors may actually make the trains less safe.
Are the doors really locked? I see the stickers that say moving between cars is prohibited, but people do it all the time on the 1,2,3.
There are, or were, 1 or 2 R44s (A train) that had unlocked doors. It was a surprise, when a subway perfume peddler made his way from one car to another via the end car door. On closer inspection, the doors on that train didn’t have the usual warning decal.