Having witnessed someone lose their legs to a subway train at Union Square (a station where the barriers are likely not currently feasible), these changes need to happen faster. Eliminating incidents of passengers entering the track area would also reduce delays.
Either way, I’m sure there is a way to make barriers happen even at the most difficult stations. The MTA just has a culture of saying no. I am sure something would happen very quickly if bonuses were tied to finding a solution.
> I’m sure there is a way to make barriers happen even at the most difficult stations
There's always a way for any project, but it may be prohibitively expensive.
One obstacle is that trains vary in door positions or widths. How would you solve that problem without buying entirely new rolling stock with a uniform door layout? And is that really the best way for the MTA to spend its money right now?
And that's just one of the obstacles. I'm not disagreeing that the MTA is an inefficient bureaucratic nightmare, but when you really dig into the specifics of this project, it becomes pretty clear why it's not feasible without massive expensive changes to both stations and trains.
I'd much rather the MTA spend its budget on actually improving train service, considering the system is still digging its way out of the deferred maintenance of the 20th century. Platform doors feel like security theater, especially considering the cost.
Keep in mind that although subway crime went up during the pandemic, it was only to 2000s-era levels, and it's now on its way back down — as much as certain media outlets might try to convince you otherwise.
The metal barriers currently being tested, while not an ideal solution, are one example of a solution that could save lives with minimal cost. Barriers that are not aligned to the doors and move up vertically from the edge of the platform (but stay down if someone is in the way) once a train approaches could be another idea.
Traditional doors like you see in many parts of Asia probably aren't the answer, but if this sort of complete solution were installed, the middle conductor position could be eliminated, resulting in labor savings. Of course this would never happen due to politics.
Service needs to improve and this may be a better use of funds. I would say that safety is a citywide problem, not an MTA-specific issue, though.
> One obstacle is that trains vary in door positions or widths. How would you solve that problem without buying entirely new rolling stock with a uniform door layout?
It doesn't have to be fancy. Chain link fencing with rolling gates can be made just about any size. You could either have the gates on motion/object sensors so they only opened when a train was at the platform and stopped, or use the low-tech method of just hiring some guys to open and close them by hand.
In any case, you could get by for a hell of a lot less than $54 million bucks per station.
Rolling stock doesn't le
ast forever. Much of nyc rolling stock should be end of life anyway. Just order new trains and remodel stations and keep compatible trains on that line. Then in two years do the next line. In 30 years they have done everthing and are ready for what is next.
> Much of nyc rolling stock should be end of life anyway
What makes you think that? The MTA has been ordering new cars pretty consistently for the past several decades. The rolling stock of the subway ranges from 1970s-era to brand new stock. Most of it is 21st century and perfectly good.
> Just order new trains and remodel stations
There's 6500 cars to replace and 400+ stations to remodel. Even if the MTA were capable of doing that on time and in-budget, it would be incredibly expensive, so I ask again: is that really the best way for the MTA to spend its budget? You're basically asking for the entire system to be rebuilt from the ground up, purely to support platform doors.
The widths are fixed depending on the line and there isn't usually more than three car variants using any given line. Those that have common door patterns can easily have barriers. Worst case, they'd have to give up the nostalgia rides on the old rolling stock.
> there isn't usually more than three car variants using any given line
I'm not sure about the first point, do you have a source? As for the second point, sure — because there are currently 3 different door layouts on the A system and 3 on the B system. But those layouts are all freely mixed across lines right now. Even if they were not, interlining means trains of different lengths will be stopping at the same platform, which means incompatibility.
I suggest skimming the MTA report linked in the article, it goes into quite a lot of detail on this, including diagrams.
The number lines (A division) are narrower than the letter lines (B division). The cars that run on each can't be mixed. This is a consequence of IRT being narrower than the BMT and IND lines.
A big problem is that platform barriers require that the train stop within a few inches of the opening, or the doors don’t match up. That isn’t practical with manual train control. And upgrading the rails and trains for ATC is super expensive. And that’s before even installing the doors.
Either way, I’m sure there is a way to make barriers happen even at the most difficult stations. The MTA just has a culture of saying no. I am sure something would happen very quickly if bonuses were tied to finding a solution.