New York City Transit

One solution for New York City’s diverse rolling stock could involve movable platform edge doors.

I’ve haven’t spent much time lately talking about subway collisions and deaths. After an early-2013 spate of hand-wringing over press attention to these incidents, what some were calling an epidemic has largely died down, and the TWU’s terrible plan to slow down trains hasn’t gone far. Furthermore, I don’t believe it’s a coincidence that as press coverage has diminished, so too have copy-cat jumpers and train/passenger collisions. Now, we’re just bombarded with endless announcements over the PA system concerning the safety of the platform edge.

Earlier on Tuesday night, though, a collision happened that drives home the idea that there is but one real solution to the problem. It’s an expensive solution that may not be practical but would have many added benefits, and it’s a solution that requires engineering creativity and an extensive capital outlay. That solution is one I haven’t been quick to endorse over cost concerns, and it is platform edge doors.

Last night, as I left my office and entered the subway at Times Square, the PA system spoke of a problem impacting the West Side IRT. There were no 1, 2 or 3 trains running uptown between 72nd and 96th St. due to a police investigation. I figured the news would not be good, and I was right. CBS New York has the gruesome details:

A 18-year-old male was struck and killed Tuesday evening by a northbound 2 train as he reportedly tried to cross the train tracks at the 79th Street station on the Upper West Side. The accident happened at around 6:30 p.m. on the express tracks. Service was disrupted on the Nos. 1, 2 and 3 subway lines in Manhattan due to the police investigation.

Law enforcement sources told 1010 WINS’ Sonia Rincon that the victim, who turned 18 on Tuesday, was with a group of friends. At least two jumped down and tried to cross — one made it, WCBS 880?s Alex Silverman reported. A witness said he begged the teens not to run across the tracks, but he could not stop them. “They crossed the tracks the hard way, as opposed to coming upstairs and going around,” the witness told CBS 2’s Derricke Dennis. “They just ran across the tracks and got hit by the 2 train in the express tunnel.”

Police said the emergency brake on the Bronx-bound train was pulled after the operator saw one teen make it across the tracks from the uptown to the downtown side, then tried to stop the train for the second boy. But the operator could not stop in time.

All around, that’s about as bad as it gets. Two 18-year-olds — who were found to have a bottle of rum with them — entered on the wrong side and decided to rectify the situation by cross four tracks at rush hour. The 2 train, accelerating through a 24-block express straightway out of 72nd St., couldn’t stop in time, and plenty of people were in the station to witness the collision. It’s tragic; it’s horrific; and it’s worthy of a Darwin Award.

This tragedy illustrates the only way to protect people is by physically barring their entry onto the tracks. We’re not going to slow express trains down as they bypass local stations, and while a motion sensor may have served as a warning, it sounds as though the 2 train was moving too fast to stop in time. So we’re left with expensive platform edge doors. They can save energy, keep tracks clean and save lives. Without an obvious big-ticket item on the MTA’s next capital plan, maybe it’s time to give them a whirl.

The subway accident rate has remained low as ridership has increased over the past ten years. (Source: New York City Transit)

I am growing weary of discussing platform edge doors. As I mentioned on Twitter yesterday, I believe the increased public concern over subway platform safety is a ruse to deflect attention away from the real issues facing our transit system. Politicians can use subway platform system to claim they care about transit issues and are looking out for riders when, in reality, the incident rate was one per 11.3 million subway riders and nearly a quarter of those were suicide attempts. But here we are. Again.

Because of two high-profile homicides that were both a far cry from normal, New York City Transit has been forced to respond to increased calls for, well, anything on subway platform safety, and during yesterday’s MTA Board Committee hearings, officials unveiled a 46-page presentation awkwardly entitled “Customer Contact With Train Incident Report.” In it, the MTA lays bear just how little of a problem this is and presents a few solutions. From public awareness campaigns to the challenges facing any sort of platform edge doors to hope for a next-generation track intrusion detection system, the MTA is clearly paying lip service to all solutions, but its options going forward are limited.

So first things first: How do people get hit by trains? According to Transit, in 2012, 54 customers were struck while in the tracks and another 51 were hit by a train while in the station. The agency says that 33 were suicides or attempted suicides while three customers fell in between cars. Short of locking car doors, the MTA can’t do much more stop people from moving in between cars, and the only solution that will put an end to subway suicides are platform edge doors. The remaining 105 collisions last year fall in that space between avoidable and unavoidable based on the circumstances.

The first step in the MTA’s campaign against collisions involves the public awareness effort. Already, the PA/CIS systems are broadcasting safety messages, and those will soon spread to the backs of MetroCards, the MetroCard Vending Machine screens, the digital ads aboveground at certain train stations and every social media outlet imaginable. At this least, this effort could scare passengers away from standing too close to the platform, but as New York is New York, straphangers won’t budge all that much.

In the realm of technology, the MTA can look to limit access to the tracks, develop a warning system or both. The first part is tricky. Even as some cities retrofit their transit system with platform edge doors, circumstances underground are working against the MTA. First, it’s costly, and the MTA has no money. Second, the rolling stock isn’t standardized and won’t be for at least another decade. Third, station infrastructure — curved, narrow platforms with both little room for required electrical systems and weak platform edges — is lacking for such an effort. Fourth, operations could suffer from extended dwell time and flagging requirements. Even though the MTA received 12 responses to its request for information, yesterday’s presentation contains the seeds of the agency’s argument that platform edge doors are basically a non-starter.

So what can happen? First, the MTA says it will expand its Help Point system which would allow customers to warn train dispatchers of a person in the tracks. This is useful as long as the train isn’t barreling down on a station or potential victim. Help Point, which I’ve mentioned obtusely as a waste of money, could be at 100 stations by the end of next year and system-wide by the end of the decade.

Second, the MTA could look at intrusion detection. Here, the idea is that an advanced imaging system can tell when a human-sized something is in the tracks and sound an alarm that essentially shuts down the system. In theory, it sounds promising, but it’s an early-stage idea. The MTA is going to initiate a Concept of Operations, but it could be years before a solution is ready for any sort of practical pilot testing or implementation.

That leaves the MTA and its customers then with few solutions to something that isn’t a major problem. The agency is going to move forward with some sort of safety pilot program, but doing so is as much about placating the rabbling masses than it is about finding a long-term solution. And while I don’t mean to minimize tragic deaths caused by train collisions, at a certain point, the cost and time spent on the non-problem will detract from Transit’s real issues that impact us all.

Yesterday afternoon, one of the MTA’s pump trains worked on the L train’s 14th St. tunnel. (Photo: Metropolitan Transportation Authority / Patrick Cashin)

For the past week, we’ve seen photo after photo of flooded tunnels, wrecked stations and eroded trainbeds. Yet, somehow, when we all leave work today, most of the city’s subway lines will be running, and service will be sufficient enough to get us all home. Considering the Governor and MTA officials were warning of historic destruction in the subway system just seven days ago, many subway riders are probably wondering how everything got fixed so quickly.

To answer just that question, New York Magazine’s Robert Kolker went underground to profile the service restoration efforts. In a way, it’s a story of how everything went right shortly after everything had gone horribly wrong. I’ll excerpt, but do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.

Half of the subway system’s fourteen under-river tubes flooded. A few filled up end to end, much like the MTA’s Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel. They couldn’t even send workers out to assess them until after the second surge at the next high tide Tuesday morning.

Pumping began soon after — or “dewatering,” as the pumping industry calls it. Other city agencies had to rely on outside contractors to pump their tunnels. But it happens that the subway system already had its own toys. Each of the system’s under-river tunnels has a sump to deal with everyday seepage, and each also has a tube fixed to the side called a discharge line. Starting Tuesday, the system sent in its “pump trains” — diesel powered trains with five or six cars, run by just five or six workers. Underneath the trains are pumps, moving hundreds of gallons of water back into the river every minute. “You take the pump train and you bury the first car up to the floor level so it’s underwater,” Prendergast says, “and you hook it up to the discharge line and you start pumping the tunnel dry.”

The only problem was the MTA had seven flooded tunnels and just three pump trains. It can take up to 100 hours to pump the largest tubes, fully loaded with water, or as little as five or six hours for those that are smaller or less fully flooded. It was time to prioritize. “If you let the size of the effort overcome you, you can’t get started,” Prendergast says. “So you just take on the most important tunnels first. It’s like the old story: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.” The highest priority was the 4, 5, and 6 Lexington line — the highest capacity line in the United States in terms of customers carried — which connects to the Joraleman Street tunnel. Then there was Clark Street tunnel, which connects to the West Side IRT 2 and 3 trains. Those lines were luckily not completely flooded. The Army Corps of Engineers helped out with some crucial work on the Montague Street tunnel, but Prendergast says the MTA handled the majority of the effort.

After pumping, the MTA had to inspect the tunnels and begin the desalination process. With the power out in Lower Manhattan, they enjoyed something of a grace period where they could work uninterrupted and without as much pressure from above. Until ConEd turned the juice on, after all, the MTA couldn’t run trains.

We know the endings: Services are coming back where damage was not too severe, and other sections will be waiting a while longer. Meanwhile, as NYC Transit President Tom Prendergast said of the MTA’s remedial measures, “If the bus bridge did anything, it helped underscore for people how our rail system has a lot more utility than our bus system.” Will we carry these lessons onward into the future?

Signs posted in the pilot stations urge riders to take their trash with them.

Amidst a healthy dose of New York City skepticism, Transit unveiled a pilot program late last year that saw trash cans disappear. In an effort to cut down on litter and trash collection costs, the MTA believed that without trash cans, straphangers would simply carry their garbage out of the system with them. While many pointed to those rude enough to throw garbage on the tracks, the vast majority of people aren’t such pigs, and Transit’s pilot program has, according to the agency, been a success.

Now, the MTA announced this morning that eight more stations will see their garbage cans removed. The expansion of the project is still being billed as a pilot. Transit wants to “get a better understanding of the impact of removing trash cans,” and these eight additional stations will have no receptacles for six months. The locations — two stations in each of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens — are a mix of elevated and underground stations that are “average-sized.”

The list is as follows. Interestingly, a few of these stations are fairly low-ridership stops:
Bronx:

• 238th Street 1 station
• East 143rd Street 6 station

Manhattan:

• 57th Street F station
• Rector Street 1 station

Brooklyn:

• 7th Avenue FG station
• Brighton Beach Q station

Queens:

• 111th Street A station
• 65th Street MR station

In addition to cost savings, Transit hopes eliminating trash cans will cut down on the underground rodent population as well. One of the issues facing the MTA involves the removal of trash bags from the subway. Often, these bags sit on platforms or in storage rooms for days on end, creating food sources and homes for the myriad rodents that scurry about underground. Short of an outright food ban — controversial in its own right — cutting down on the volume of trash that accumulates could help control the number of subway rats. Or so the thinking goes.

Earlier this week, during the MTA Board Committee meetings, the Transit Committee materials let slip an interesting fact: Fare evasion is higher than previously reported. Facing pressure from within and without, Transit has upped its estimate of lost revenue to around $100 million. Based on the latest budget projections, that puts the agency’s bleed rate at around 2.7 percent, not unmanageable but higher than anyone would like.

Now, it’s all well and good to target fare evasion, but there’s a potential PR problem looming. What do you if many of those evading the fares are children? According to an article in today’s Wall Street Journal, children who duck under turnstiles could account for up to 43 percent of the subway fare evasion problem. Sumathi Reddy had more to say:

Last year, the Daily News reported that an agency staff report presented at a conference found that 43% of fare-beaters were kids taller than 44 inches ducking under turnstiles. At the time, the Daily News said the authority was considering placing signs near turnstiles to make riders aware of the rule.

Bowling Green is the only subway station that has one: Near the turnstiles at every subway entrance is a blue sign with a yellow ruler. The 44-inch point is marked and the sign says: “When accompanied by an adult, up to 3 children under 44 inches in height, ride free.”

Hmmm. So if you have four babies in tow, you have to pay for one. Who knew? But it doesn’t clearly spell out that if a parent has even one child over 44 inches, he or she must pay (though that information is posted on booths).

A spokesman for the MTA said the Bowling Green sign was part of a pilot program that began last year to inform commuters that the requirement exists. He said the agency is studying whether it’s feasible to put them up across the entire system.

Of course, the sign, as Reddy notes, is having no effect. She noticed parents opening the emergency exits for her children, two children doubling up on one swipe at the urging of their parents and a general disregard for the height requirement.

What to do? What to do? Reddy offers up this child-friendly take: “It’s hard to complain about the MTA not cracking down on child fare-beaters. In fact, we should probably applaud them, though one has to wonder why the rule exists to begin with.” Still, with the stories she tells, parents should be under the microscope here, and neither age nor height should excuse a proper fare payment.

Yet, it’s a tough question to address. If the MTA is going to cut down on fare evasion, it will have to focus on the fact that a lot of children who should be paying for the rides have not been, and that’s an uncomfortable conundrum for parents and transit executives alike.