One of the bigger comfort issues with New York City subway rolling stock prior to the R142 series concerned the bucket seats. Introduced in the mid-1980s, these seats were designed by people far skinnier than the average American, and straphangers would either squish themselves in or sacrifice potential seating space. When bench seats returned, so did a certain level of comfort. Unfortunately, the city’s bus fleet is a different story all together.
Currently, the buses still enjoy bucket seats not wide for anyone who weighs much more than 110 pounds, and on the newer model, legroom is nearly non-existent. If I’m riding the B63 or B67, I try to find side-facing seats so that my knees don’t hit the back of the seat in front of me, and I’m of average height. I can’t imagine how anyone larger than I am feels.
With new buses hitting the streets, the MTA had a chance to address these problems, but according to a report in The Post, they have not done so yet. Heather Haddon writes:
The MTA’s newest buses have New Yorkers scratching their heads at the numskull design, where riders 5-foot-2 or taller can easily hit their noggins on the low roofs. The Nova Diesel Standards are 61.5 inches high at their lowest point along the rear windows, as compared to 69 inches in the Nova RTS buses dating from the late 1990s. The older models don’t have interior steps leading to the back section in the rear…
A group of eight seats in the back are also dramatically short on legroom, with 15 inches of space total. Passengers sit facing each other in these intimate quarters, leaving 7.5 inches of space per person. The old RTS buses gave 10 inches of space for riders. The strange setup forces the long-legged to sprawl themselves into the aisle, The Post observed during a recent ride…
MTA spokeswoman Deirdre Parker said that the reduced headroom is necessary to accommodate power and suspension systems. The buses are lower to the ground, making boarding quicker and eliminating the temperamental wheelchair lifts used in the older buses, she said.
The MTA hasn’t committed to ordering a full slate of new buses yet, but even if 90 arrive on the city streets with these legroom issues, that’s too many. Passenger comfort and convenience, often overlooked by the MTA, is apparently again being forgotten in the rush to purchase new equipment.
18 comments
How about getting us some proper surface rail already to alleviate some of the misery and ineffectiveness that is the NYC bus network? Stupid city fathers.
110 pounds? Who calculated this? I’m 5’11’ and I weigh about 145 pounds, and the bus and subway seats are very comfortable for me. I can easily fit in one bucket seat. Hell, if I put my legs together, I still have ample room on either side of the seat. I actually prefer the older B and R trains, simply because the bucket seats are awesome for me. And I miss window seats. The new trains may be great for moving people, but the lack of window seats really kills the fun of riding the train, for me at least.
110lbs was probably a typical size 40 years ago or so.
I think I barely fit into a bucket seat. But if I end up next to someone obese, I’m screwed. I almost want to beg people not to sit down next to me sometimes.
I’m 5’10 and 160 and also have no trouble with bucket seating on the bus or train and love the interior window seat on the A and D trains. I get one of those early on since Im practically at the end of the line and ride on in pretty much undisturbed, without ever feeling obliged to stand for the handicapped or elderly, since lets face it, that’s a pretty tight squeeze getting in there.
Can someone save me some valuable Googling time and post a photo of the new buses in question?
I’m 5″10′ and usually weigh about 150 pounds, though I do have disproportionately long legs. I seem to use the same busses as Ben. I find I can sit in the front facing seats as long as I sort of half pivot and extend my legs into the aisle at an angle. This becomes a problem if the bus is crowded, but the same applies if I was sitting in one of the side facing seats and extending my legs into the aisle. I prefer to stand in these situations. But I agree with the overall point, legroom in the existing busses is OK but not great, and if the new busses have less legroom that could be a disaster, possibly even to the point of making it difficult to evacuate a crowded bus in an emergency.
I disagree with the above comment, I find the front facing seats on some trains pretty useless, since there is usually a very small space between them and an aisle seat, making it impossible to sit on one and not extend your legs into the space sitting in the other. If I am on one of these trains, and they are even half-full, I prefer to stand.
One point people haven’t made is as service gets cut and headrooms increases, subways and busses get more crowded. The seat configuration then becomes very important (I disagree with previous suggestions made on this site to go to cattle cars). The recent wave of immigrants, particularly the Americans, also seem unable or unwilling to adopt the etiquette needed for everyone to coexist comfortably in crowded public spaces, which again means that the MTA should be paying more, not less, attention to these matters.
Why exactly did bus manufacturers give up on longitudinal seating, as in the old “fishbowl” buses of yesteryear? Was it a practical matter (ADA compliance?) or some other reason? Those old buses had tons of seats and a long, wide area for standees. Today’s buses seem a few feet shorter to boot.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/o.....138730441/
(Photo above has half longitudinal seating; many newer models had seats running along the entire length of the bus).
The GM new look AKA “fishbowls” sat 53, while first generation RTS’s sat 49 & as time went on seating capasity has slowly dropped to around 40 or less depending on make & configuration.
Here in Westchester the new 40-foot low floor NOBI busses the county purchased seat 38 & if wheelchairs are on board it falls to 30.
Old private bus company RTSes (now MTA Bus) had 2×2 seating. NYCT RTSes have 1×2 seating. Why the difference, I dont know.
Before they ordered new subway cars, they had a mock-up set up to get rider’s opinions. Where was the focus group or survey for this bus purchase? Just shows how bus riders do not matter to the MTA. They just want everyone to ride the subway as if that were possible.
Well, of course. They inflict buses on them, afterall. :-p
But seriously, there there may only be so much you can do with a bus that meets FTA criteria.
The Nova Bus is made in a cornfield in upstate NY. Single bidder contract through buy NY laws. Suck it up or bitch at Albany.
Here’s the dilemma with bus seating comfort and headroom:
1. ADA rules require accessible buses.
2. Wheelchair tie downs take away seats.
3. Wheelchair access requires either a lift on a high floor bus or a ramp on a low floor bus.
4. Lifts on high floor buses have reliability problems and take a great amount of time to operate, causing buses to go off schedule whenever the lift is deployed. In addition, buses have to be parallel to the curb on a smooth section of roadway for the lift to operate properly. However, the lift itself, especially if a front door lift, does not take away significant seating capacity.
5. Ramps on low floor buses are easy to operate and very reliable. Wheelchair access is much quicker than on a lift equipped bus. However, the wheelwells intrude into the low floor of the bus. This causes many seats to be lost, especially in front. To reduce the loss of seats in the rear, many bus models add steps raising the rear floor over the wheelwells and also making servicing of the buses easier as other mechanical components are under the rear of the bus. However, headroom in the rear is generally somewhat reduced and seats are not as commodious as in the rear of a high floor bus.
One more critical item: Low floor buses have so many fewer seats that on a busy rute, more buses are needed to handle the same passenger load. While the increased frequency is good for the bus rider, the increased cost of operating more buses for the same number of passengers is devastating to the transit operator.
On the other hand, low-floors have shorter dwells, so the lower capacity per bus is canceled out by shorter transit time per bus and higher schedule reliability.
BrooklynBus will be happy to know that various European agencies judge the dwell time to be the most important consideration, and therefore equip standard-length buses with three doors and articulated buses with four.
Proof of payment flaming thread in 3 2 …
Meh, who in their right mind is against POP anymore? It’s debatable as a good idea for subways, but it’s a duh on buses.
As a M15 rider, I couldn’t agree more on the dwell issue.