Remember the pilot program featuring in-station strip maps that was designed to improve wayfinding underground? Well, take a look at what happened to one of the maps in Grand Central barely four months after they were first unveiled. It ain’t pretty.
As seen at Grand Central on Wednesday evening. (Photo by Benjamin Kabak)
Of course, it’s not a big surprise that a free-standing sign at a busy subway station was vandalized. Basically anything the MTA installs — from signs to benches to garbage cans — is at risk of suffering the same fate. But on the other hand, this outcome raises a question: Why should the MTA bother to invest in simple things that improve the system if this is how riders respond?
One of the endlessly annoying messages the TA broadcasts into the new rolling stock concludes with an exhortation: “Courtesy is contagious and it starts with you.” As cheesy as it sounds, it’s true, and the same can be said for the way we treat our system. If we’re respectful, if we don’t destroy signs, litter or use the subway was a public toilet, everyone would enjoy a more pleasant commute.
39 comments
Your last sentence is correct, but it is wishful thinking. That’s why the MTA must consider vandalism in everything it designs, which I am sure they do. Perhaps, this program needed a little more thought to make it harder to vandalize. I am always amazed that people will find a way to take something that supposed to stick and figure a way to pull it apart but we can’t figure out a way to remove gum from concrete and other surfaces. If someone is caught doing this, that should be their punishment to remove the gum from a platform.
It’s really disgusting how a few pigs can ruin things for everybody else.
I lived through the days of the graffiti epidemic on the subways.
So now it’s THIS.
I was wondering how long it would take for that to happen. The signs were really nice when they put them up.
Here at home in St. Louis, we had a ‘Children Playing’sign ripped in a similar manner. I’m puzzled, though, why the strip-map is a sticker on metal, rather than the painted signs seen elsehwere.
its sticker on metal probably for two reasons its cheaper and easier to replace in case of route or transfer alterations
DC has had strip maps. Big strip maps that run the back wall of the platform and changeable hard to destruct strip maps on metal for years. It’s possible to do. Perhaps because this is a pilot project no one invested that kind of money in it. Although when they started their strip maps it was a pilot project too. One that is slowly expanding beyond the 2 or 3 stations that started with it.
[…] Benjamin Kabak, who took the photo, is a transit blogger and advocate in New York City. He had the following to say on the destroyed map: Of course, it’s not a big surprise that a free-standing sign at a busy subway station was vandalized. Basically anything the MTA installs — from signs to benches to garbage cans — is at risk of suffering the same fate. But on the other hand, this outcome raises a question: Why should the MTA bother to invest in simple things that improve the system if this is how riders respond? […]
I don’t know what the penalty is for someone if they get caught defacing or destroying MTA property like this, but part of the penalty should be several hundred hours cleaning subway cars and buses.
i vote for jailtime
strong punishment for “petty” crime = deterrent
One of the reasons WMATA is such a stickler about things like eating in the subway is to prevent the attitude from setting in that the subway is a place where abusing the rules is OK. New York’s problems go back a long ways — there’s a reason why the TA was experimenting with hard plastic seats on the R-22s in 1957 after switching over from rattan to vynil seats in the late 1940s, and why there’s no blue doors or blue stripes on the R-32, R-42 and R-46 cars today.
It’s the same sort of attitude towards vandalizing easy targets that made padded seats on the railcars non-viable 55 years ago and made amything painted (intemtionally by the MTA) on the rail cars obsolete by the 1980s. Anything but the most secure items are targets for abuse on today’s trains and in the stations, and changing an integenerational
…mindset is probably tougher than just designing with the idea that the infrastructure is going to be targeted for abuse if it’s easily accessible.
(sorry for the continued post. The iPad apparently has a mind of its own when it comes to posting.)
Completely agree. A zero tolerance policy would raise the standards immeasurably. However, is the MTA police force willing to step up and finally fine/arrest all the scofflaws and antisocial types making the subways miserable for the rest of us? Further, will New Yorkers support this or will they complain and cry victim when their ill-mannered children are finally held to account?
The WMATA adopted a zero-tolerance policy to food in the Metro and simply took the PR hit when a teenager was busted eating fries on a Metro escalator. It certainly got the point across though that certain behavior would’t be tolerated.
i distinctly remember my mother and I getting yelled at when I was a boy when she let me eat an ice cream cone as we walked down the DC metro stop at dupont circle. traumatic at the time and a bit of overkill, but certainly got the point across. Certainly no homeless people defecating in the stairwells on the red line, as I am treated to on a bimonthly basis as a daily user of the IRT lines (ignoring the fast food, spitting, vandalism and urination that seem a daily part of my commute).
For what it’s worth, in Singapore the subway seats aren’t padded either. And Singapore’s the kind of place where they wouldn’t let me bring a can of coke on the train.
From a bean-counter perspective, I’m sure fiberglass seats have their fully cushioned or even slightly padded cousins beat by miles, and I wouldn’t be surprised if WMATA eventually goes to fiberglass seats on future railcar orders if their passenger usage numbers keep rising. But in the case of NYCTA in the 1950s, it was the vandals with the knives that pushed the changeover to the hardback seats on the new cars, and the (uncomfortable) retrofits on the R-7 through R-22s.
The main point is you can look at the brand-new routing map being ripped up and wonder “What’s wrong with kids these days?” But when it comes to the New York subway, the same questions could have been asked of some of their grandparents and great-grandparents, because the problem of abusing attempts to make the system more rider-friendly go back generations. That’s what has created a general mindset among many in New York that the system isn’t worth respecting, so why not rip down a few signs or acid-etch a few windows?
Why should the MTA bother to invest in simple things that improve the system if this is how riders respond?
I hardly call the children responsible for this typical of the every day rider. I remember growing up in the City and what it was like and who it was that was tagging up the subways. I think its a mistake to both penalize all the riders as ingrates and punish these children with life time criminal records pursuing some sort of “zero-tolerance” policy. Just design it so it won’t break in ten seconds.
It’s always rotten children, raised by rotten parents. I see just as many poor adults littering while yelling at their kids, as I see kids on their own acting like wild animals.
Zero-tolerance. Instant triple-digit fine and triple-digit hours community service. I’m sick of this crap. The old towers at 4 Ave-9 St on the F/G were being renovated during the Culver viaduct rehab. One of them got brand new brickwork and looked brand new. Within a week every inch of it was covered with ugly black squiggly lines. Put up barbed wire and security cams in areas like that in addition to fines/community service.
jailtime.
not kidding.
the cost and penalty outweighs the crime, sadly. and the system can’t afford it.
You could just go the Singapore route and instate caning as a punishment.
You’re free to move there if you want to live there. They’ll take you if you have a degree. Of course, if someone else can do your job at lower wage, you’re out on the streets. If you get citizenship by then, you’ll be able to be a cab driver, though. It’s totally fine to scramble for fares and make $120 a day and have to pay $90 in daily rent for the taxi, right?
I’ll bet the pilot program was to test the effectiveness of the diagrams, meaning how helpful they were to passengers, if they were placed in the proper place, etc. For this kind of trial, the extra vandal-proofing steps were considered to be unnecessary. I’ll bet that if this were to become permanent, the maps would be mounted somehow behind a piece of plexiglass. Or maybe that makes too much sense.
the nyc train system is the most famous system in the world and the most recognizable: not because of a zero-tolerance policy, not because it clean and even section of it is functional by design, not because it is quiet, but because it is big, loud, grimy, and exciting. Take away that aesthetic, you remove the soul of nyc.
Nonsense. It’s famous because of its utility. (Besides, the people who rely on it don’t care if it’s famous or not.)
“Nonsense. It’s famous because of its utility. (Besides, the people who rely on it don’t care if it’s famous or not.)”
Yes, because the people in the Czech Republic know the speeds of the trains, or the lack of the rush hour charge. People who do not use the NYC subway no nothing of its utility, in the same way that you do not know if the Rome metro has utility or not (assuming you’ve never used it). The films capturing NYC in the 70s or 80s, the documentation of graffiti, and the fact that it has attracted photographers and film locations more than any other train system again has nothing to do with the utility. When I travel abroad people ask me what it is like, usually interested in its character. I only submit that if did not have the ambiance that it does now, it would not have the same appeal.
I have relied on it since birth and do not care if it is famous or not, but that sidesteps my point. The aesthetic engenders the appeal, famous or not.
Oh, you mean that it’s famous among vandals.
That’s not the sort of fame I want the system to have.
“Oh, you mean that it’s famous among vandals.
That’s not the sort of fame I want the system to have.”
You seem to be missing the point and focusing on fame. And you know that it is not famous among vandals alone, but I guess you do not have a serious reply.
You up again 30’s of history, so if not the sort of connotations you want for the NYC subway system, you got a big task ahead of you.
The NYC subways were glamorized in movies long before the movies made the “gritty” 1970s and 1980s seem like something we should miss. Allowing vandalism just because that’s what people expect based on what they’ve seen in movies is hardly the way to run a subway system.
1) Name the movies.
2) Wow. I wonder where the art of argument has gone. In what part of any of my posts did I submit that “Allowing vandalism just because that’s what people expect based on what they’ve seen in movies is hardly the way to run a subway system.’ Please highlight it to me.
Then perhaps your point is a bit obtuse. You said the subways are famous because they are “big, loud, grimy, and exciting. Take away that aesthetic, you remove the soul of nyc.” If that’s not advocating for an anything-goes policy, then what are you trying to say?
As for movies, start with “On The Two” and go from there.
My point about the “soul of nyc:” to all who ride the subway, it is glaringly apparent that it is grimier compared to other metros (not all), the train ride itself is louder from the friction, and there is always the unknown, whether that be a subway performance, loud political debate, or someone who just losses it and yells out random things. Such occurrences are also consistent with NYC more generally. They are not wholly unique, especially amongst large cosmopolitan cities, but more frequent or noticeable in NYC.
What is the supposed routine of taking the subway—you go down the steps to the train, you get on the car, you get off, and that is it. I would argue most people intuitively respond with that description or some similar type of functionalist argument for what we ought to expect of a proper train experience
However, the NYC system then has a lot of dysfunction. My argument is not that people should rip off signs of train directions, or piss on the subway tracks, or any other grievance that was listed. Furthermore, my argument is geared toward the reaction of the post, rather than the post itself. I posit that without elements of dysfunction to the system, it loses its aesthetic and singularity as a reflection of the being, aura, soul, or whatever other signifiers there is that describes the living essence of the city. Many of cities across the world have their own aura that are different from NYC, some similarly dysfunction in their own way, others not. My point here, then, is there should be a recognition of how these elements of dysfunction are part of the NYC metro as both a reflection of the city, and add to its characteristic in way that is not wholly negative.
You should do a post about films on the subway. I would be interested in learning more.
Thanks.
I don’t think most users of the system consider your “aura” to be a good thing.
In this particular case, we’re discussing a customer information tool that has been defaced. Do you think that’s a good thing or a bad thing?
“In this particular case, we’re discussing a customer information tool that has been defaced. Do you think that’s a good thing or a bad thing?”
Please review the post, I clearly addressed this.
“I don’t think most users of the system consider your “aura” to be a good thing.”
I would agree. However, when I have talked to most people about this, after explaining my position, almost all agreed that they would not want to see all the dysfunctional elements removed.
Don’t take this personally, but it’s ridiculous to say people wouldn’t want the dysfunctional elements of our subway system removed. Come on now.
Seriously.
I do not take it personally.
The immediate reaction to the statement is the common intuitive reply. For what I have defined as dysfunctional, you say it is ridiculous for people to “want” such things. To begin, you just said it was ridiculous without giving reason for it. I do not know why it is ridiculous, you provided no premises, especially considering that I forwarded at least a bit of an explanation of reasoning in the previous post.
I will again state the argument and provide a quick example. Argument: there should be a recognition of how these elements of dysfunction are part of the NYC metro as both a reflection of the city, and add to its characteristic in way that is not wholly negative.
Take a comparison of the London tube and NYC subway, specifically the stations. Now, you should have the experience of taking both metros multiple times to really understand my point, as I believe a comparison of example that is something each of can test illustrates this argument best. The station floors of most of the tube are cleaner than our subway. Generally, there is less wear and tear, the tiles appear fresher, and the walls have less decay. Generally in NYC, the platforms have gum stains, are blackened from age, the walls have tags here and there, and so forth. The London system is older in terms of its life, but has been revamped more frequently. Following this context, I think you would argue then that based on comparing the two stations, the tube is better. Why? Perhaps you would say that the NYC stations are unhygienic, or less visually stimulating, or evidence the MTA is inefficient, or that New Yorkers are disrespectful people, or something else. (All my assumptions of what you would say)
However, when think critically about both, I realize there is more using a train station every day. When sit in either and attempt to feel each, to describe each later, to digest and pinpoint its inner-workings as a living organism, perhaps the subway as the veins of the city, then I argue that such seemingly dysfunctional elements are not wholly negative. Blackened station floors emanate history and the hustle and bustle of years past. I can sense that the platforms in NYC hold years of history; I cannot in London, even though it is in fact an older system. I can see there is more public interaction in the NYC system, both with the physical space of the station and between people; I cannot in London.
You get an experience being on the NYC train system that you do not get anywhere else–in large part because of its peculiarities. Again, this is not to push aside its functionality. In NYC, I can still get to wherever I want to go, all hours of the day, and to any other part of the city for just 2.25.
A 100 percent functional system is, for lack of a better word, aseptic. Test this by riding the metro in other cities. Then think about if the NYC subway is more vibrant or exciting. If so, then think about why. I will wager that in one way or another, some element of dysfunction is either directly or indirectly involved.
The term “only in New York” is in our nomenclature for good reason.
“Oh, man, I’m so sick of this transit system, it works and there’s nothing to complain about! The horrors!”
[…] signs that are designed to help people find their ways about the subway system: Eventually, they fall victim to irate vandals. But what about the MTA’s high-tech countdown clocks? Here’s the view […]