i saw that and hoped it was a lie as the alternative is that the mta has granted a vendor who apparently has quite poor judgment the ability to shut down the subway system (or at least force people to jump turnstiles).
Not every station has an attendant, especially at 2AM. But even then, every gate is unlocked. At worst they just sound an alarm. But most of the time the alarms are turned off anyway.
Most entrances do not have a human attendant nearby, and the general trend in NYC (and probably most places) has been to replace the humans with vending machines.
Which stations? I've been reading how the MTA tried to eliminate extra floating staff to cover agent's "lunch" breaks, and they got shut down by the state. Even in the middle of the night, someone has to be there for 30 minutes while the normal agent takes their lunch break.
Obviously, it's relatively recent that we got 24/7 service back, but I'm not counting the COVID service reductions.
I dunno what the regs say, or what the MTA publicizes, but the reality is almost any station in Brooklyn, Queens, Harlem, etc. is going to be unsupervised in the late hours. Maybe there’s somebody lurking in an annex somewhere, but the ticket/info booth will be locked up and no MTA personnel, not even a janitor, will be visible. This was even the case for heavily trafficked stops like Bedford or Lorimer on the L.
OK, very interesting. I searched around for policies, and didn't find anything except people complaining about that 30 minute lack of coverage for "lunch". I assumed that if they flat-out had nobody in stations, there would be similar outrage.
I live in Brooklyn Heights and used to routinely work until 2 in the morning; there was always someone in the booth a High St. and Clark St. at that hour.
"client called and complained about lost revenue when we did it the way that's specified in our documentation so we're gonna put a note in the checklist to override it going forward"
You don't pay a fare to exit the New York City Transit system, so nothing will prevent you from leaving during a fire; control system failure or otherwise. There are also emergency exit doors (that many people open to exit more quickly in normal operation of the subway). One may argue that having to go through a turnstile at all is an evacuation disaster, but presumably the designers thought about this and the exit doors are adequate in an emergency.
This is different than systems like London and Tokyo, where you pay for the distance you traveled, and a station evacuation mandates opening the fare controls to let people exit more quickly. For better or for worse, that option has never existed in New York.
It's been a while...lockdown...so I'm recalling memories from ~ 1 year ago, the last time I used the tube (I live in London), but if I remember right, each gate has a red emergency stop button you can hit to exit in an emergency.
Gate lines in the UK are manned, if there isn't someone available to supervise the gate line, the gates are left open.
There is no "red emergency stop button" on the gates. Perhaps if the maintenance controls are open there's a red button inside somewhere, but that's not what it's for. Most likely you're remembering other emergency stop buttons you saw, e.g. on escalators or in lifts?
There are red emergency open buttons for the gateline operator. Here is where they are, in the London Underground training video for gateline operators.[1]
True, but those aren't controls on the gate. I guess I should have mentioned them in my list of other places the grand-parent might have seen red emergency stop buttons.
I'm not sure this is a manual override. Most likely, they didn't "fail" - the control system was holding them closed for some reason but this wasn't a failure scenario. I'm sure they would correctly fail open if the power was cut or the fire alarm was triggered.
One key thing that a lot of people seem to be missing in this conversation: The turnstiles rotate in two directions, inwards and outwards. They always freely rotate outwards, so every turnstile can always be used to exit the system. They are always locked against inwards rotation, except for when you swipe your Metrocard, then they perform one partial rotation to admit you.
The linked photo shows someone who is being denied entry into the system, i.e. payments cannot be made and thus that one partial inwards rotation cannot happen. Outwards rotation, however, remains unaffected; if they were on the other side of the turnstile, they wouldn't be trapped inside; they'd still be able to exit through the turnstile.
Much more likely in NYC than Paris (among other things because in Paris there's a turnstile _and_ a door, typically, and NYC has swing open emergency exit doors people use routinely)
in Paris, the turnstiles prevent passage when closed, so it would prevent people from using the metro if it defaulted to close in case of failure. And I don't think it's used to prevent overcrowding, just regulate the flow
The basic idea would be to see how much they save vs all the costs spend on maintaining fair box revenue.
However, there's also a political aspect (people have less of a problem paying for something they're using) and a policing aspect (you can kick out vagrants who don't have a ticket), and a "tax the non-voters" (out-of-towners pay for tickets, just like hotel tax, and this is popular with locals).
As much as I feel like NY City transit deserves state-level funding, I don't feel comfortable taxing people in low-income rural areas of the state $330 a year for this. I'd rather tax luxury developers and employers of white-collar workers who commute to the office.
This is assuming that there are no fares, as suggested by GP.
Also I think you are overestimating the elasticity of demand for residence in New York City with respect to tax rates, at least for people and businesses with large amounts of money.
I'm not even close to what you would call a high income earner in New York City, but I would be fine with paying increased subway fares in order to subsidize bus fares in outer boroughs, paying $15 instead of $2.75 for East River ferry rides, etc.
Shuffling around pocket change from people who won't even notice it's gone to people who need it desperately is not going to keep people out of New York. The biggest problem is real estate, both for the city's non-wealthy residents and for its small businesses. And even people with good incomes don't like being juiced for $4k++ in order to avoid living like a broke student with a 90 minute commute.
> As much as I feel like NY City transit deserves state-level funding, I don't feel comfortable taxing people in low-income rural areas of the state $330 a year for this
The MTA already invests disproportionate levels of funds on commuter rail services that are used ~exclusively by non-city residents, far out of line with their usage. It's totally reasonable to have them contribute more, instead of forcing the city to shoulder an even greater burden.
And that's just looking at MTA funds, not even considering the amount of money spent on maintaining free roads and highways in other parts of the state (the funding for which is already drawn disproportionately from NYC's tax base).
Metro North fares are also pretty high, and the suit-and-tie Metro North riders also aren't the people I had in mind who would be hurt by an extra $330/year tax.
Highway maintenance is another story and you have a good point there.
But I really wish that people wouldn't treat the state's finances like a battle of wills between the poor oppressed Westchester commuters and Manhattan tech bros versus the greedy rural upstate leeches.
City dwellers disproportionately pay for a lot of the infrastructure used in rural areas, where lower densities increase costs. Highways, postal services, utilities, etc. get charged the same, but cost less to deliver or are used less by city dwellers.
That sounds like a good bargain. The downside is that the MTA would no longer have as good of a reason to incentivize ridership. I feel like there'd be a lot of negative side effects to a change like that.
No, what I'm pointing out is that the scales involved are preposterous in this case. 100% of the residents would be paying for services that are only available to ~41% of the residents.
On the other hand, if it were, say, a tax in the service area of the MTA, then it would be mostly equitable.
But it's always the case that some tax revenue is used for things that most people paying into it won't benefit directly from. That's generally accepted when people believe the indirect benefit overall worthwhile.
This means that worrying about the relative %ages often isn't that productive compared to asking what is the broader benefit. (I'm not, fwiw, making the argument one way or another based on NYC transit, just saying it's a more on target argument to make).
Yes. It's always the case that some people are left out, you're right. For example, not everyone in the MTA's service area uses the MTA.
The suggestion at hand is literally unprecedented. Most taxes have some people paying into them who won't (fully/directly) benefit, but this tax would have the majority of people paying into it see no benefit.
That is a downside, the "the" downside. I'm not even convinced that it is close to the biggest issue, considering the obvious counterarguments. Not all tax costs have direct benefits to the payer. That is a feature, not a bug.
Factor in you also wouldn't have to waste money on enforcement.
I think if someone really ran the numbers you can make an argument you're wasting money by charging people for public transit. You'd also encourage less people to drive which could definitely help when it comes to the suburbs
Honor systems work where there is a culture of honesty when unsupervised. New York City, I'm afraid, is... not that.
Also, the system is so large and geographically spread out that you could never have enough officers to enforce / spot check people to make them trust it.
And one of the most frustrating things for the law-abiding is when law-breakers are not caught or disciplined. Law-abiding people themselves might stop participating out of frustration. The system would quickly collapse.
The MTA response indicated that a gate agent is present to perform an override. Additionally, the exit is always free. Folks with mobility challenges are not endangered by this.
> The MTA response indicated that a gate agent is present to perform an override. Additionally, the exit is always free. Folks with mobility challenges are not endangered by this.
They're not endangered in that they're free to leave, but it's not true that a gate agent is always present, despite what the MTA claims, so it's possible people would have been unable to enter if they are unable or unwilling to jump the turnstile.
(In practice, there's almost always someone leaving the station/train, and they'd be able to open the emergency gate from the inside in a situation like this.)
> Turnstiles or similar devices that restrict travel to one direction shall not be placed so as to obstruct any required means of egress.
There are some exceptions. The type of turnstile pictured may be used for up to 50% of the required egress capacity, and must fail open (for egress) in event of power loss, as well as offer a manual override to allow for free egress. This style of turnstile can also not be counted for egress requirements when placed in an "accessible route".
Additionally,
> Where serving an occupant load greater than 300, each manually-operated turnstile and automatic turnstile that is not portable shall have a side-hinged swinging door which conforms to Section 1008.1 within 50 feet (15 240 mm).
What I find fascinating about this comment section:
No one seems alarmed that ONE server reboot can take down all the turnstiles at the same time?!?
Does that not scream there is a disaster waiting to happen at a moments notice if there is that little of resiliency and availability in their application architecture?
75 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 144 ms ] threadThe worst case here is "software bug at 2AM means that you have to use the staffed entrance".
Obviously, it's relatively recent that we got 24/7 service back, but I'm not counting the COVID service reductions.
I dunno what the regs say, or what the MTA publicizes, but the reality is almost any station in Brooklyn, Queens, Harlem, etc. is going to be unsupervised in the late hours. Maybe there’s somebody lurking in an annex somewhere, but the ticket/info booth will be locked up and no MTA personnel, not even a janitor, will be visible. This was even the case for heavily trafficked stops like Bedford or Lorimer on the L.
I live in Brooklyn Heights and used to routinely work until 2 in the morning; there was always someone in the booth a High St. and Clark St. at that hour.
It makes absolutely no sense, because the main thing is to keep the traffic moving, not to engorge it.
This is different than systems like London and Tokyo, where you pay for the distance you traveled, and a station evacuation mandates opening the fare controls to let people exit more quickly. For better or for worse, that option has never existed in New York.
Gate lines in the UK are manned, if there isn't someone available to supervise the gate line, the gates are left open.
There is no "red emergency stop button" on the gates. Perhaps if the maintenance controls are open there's a red button inside somewhere, but that's not what it's for. Most likely you're remembering other emergency stop buttons you saw, e.g. on escalators or in lifts?
[1] https://youtu.be/lRdkI09KCpk?t=220
"NYPD say no access"
The linked photo shows someone who is being denied entry into the system, i.e. payments cannot be made and thus that one partial inwards rotation cannot happen. Outwards rotation, however, remains unaffected; if they were on the other side of the turnstile, they wouldn't be trapped inside; they'd still be able to exit through the turnstile.
I really prefer there not being any turnstiles to begin with.
Many systems use the turnstiles as a way to prevent overcrowding and people being pushed onto the metro tracks or killed by a human-crush.
Failing open in that case could be deadly.
Have the vendors previously been using the night-time service break for maintenance operations?
Besides, who actually gets around to overnight, manual maintenance at the very start of the maintenance break? ;)
This is a good argument to just remove physical turnstiles and rely upon an honor system.
I think the compliance rate would be very poor in NYC
>if the NYC firebox revenue
I'm assuming you mean farebox revenue right?
The basic idea would be to see how much they save vs all the costs spend on maintaining fair box revenue.
However, there's also a political aspect (people have less of a problem paying for something they're using) and a policing aspect (you can kick out vagrants who don't have a ticket), and a "tax the non-voters" (out-of-towners pay for tickets, just like hotel tax, and this is popular with locals).
If it were actually done it'd probably be done as a tax with a credit, offsetting it for lower-income.
I think it'd be interesting to make it part of the driver license/ID (even as an optional fee) so that your DL could be your subway card.
Also I think you are overestimating the elasticity of demand for residence in New York City with respect to tax rates, at least for people and businesses with large amounts of money.
I'm not even close to what you would call a high income earner in New York City, but I would be fine with paying increased subway fares in order to subsidize bus fares in outer boroughs, paying $15 instead of $2.75 for East River ferry rides, etc.
Shuffling around pocket change from people who won't even notice it's gone to people who need it desperately is not going to keep people out of New York. The biggest problem is real estate, both for the city's non-wealthy residents and for its small businesses. And even people with good incomes don't like being juiced for $4k++ in order to avoid living like a broke student with a 90 minute commute.
The MTA already invests disproportionate levels of funds on commuter rail services that are used ~exclusively by non-city residents, far out of line with their usage. It's totally reasonable to have them contribute more, instead of forcing the city to shoulder an even greater burden.
And that's just looking at MTA funds, not even considering the amount of money spent on maintaining free roads and highways in other parts of the state (the funding for which is already drawn disproportionately from NYC's tax base).
Highway maintenance is another story and you have a good point there.
But I really wish that people wouldn't treat the state's finances like a battle of wills between the poor oppressed Westchester commuters and Manhattan tech bros versus the greedy rural upstate leeches.
What you are pointing out is a fundamental issue with taxes; the only hope is to have a systems that citizens feel is mostly equitable.
On the other hand, if it were, say, a tax in the service area of the MTA, then it would be mostly equitable.
This means that worrying about the relative %ages often isn't that productive compared to asking what is the broader benefit. (I'm not, fwiw, making the argument one way or another based on NYC transit, just saying it's a more on target argument to make).
The suggestion at hand is literally unprecedented. Most taxes have some people paying into them who won't (fully/directly) benefit, but this tax would have the majority of people paying into it see no benefit.
I think if someone really ran the numbers you can make an argument you're wasting money by charging people for public transit. You'd also encourage less people to drive which could definitely help when it comes to the suburbs
The 2021 NYC budget is $88B. Hiking all taxes across the board 7% is a political nonstarter.
Also, the system is so large and geographically spread out that you could never have enough officers to enforce / spot check people to make them trust it.
And one of the most frustrating things for the law-abiding is when law-breakers are not caught or disciplined. Law-abiding people themselves might stop participating out of frustration. The system would quickly collapse.
They're not endangered in that they're free to leave, but it's not true that a gate agent is always present, despite what the MTA claims, so it's possible people would have been unable to enter if they are unable or unwilling to jump the turnstile.
(In practice, there's almost always someone leaving the station/train, and they'd be able to open the emergency gate from the inside in a situation like this.)
> Turnstiles or similar devices that restrict travel to one direction shall not be placed so as to obstruct any required means of egress.
There are some exceptions. The type of turnstile pictured may be used for up to 50% of the required egress capacity, and must fail open (for egress) in event of power loss, as well as offer a manual override to allow for free egress. This style of turnstile can also not be counted for egress requirements when placed in an "accessible route".
Additionally,
> Where serving an occupant load greater than 300, each manually-operated turnstile and automatic turnstile that is not portable shall have a side-hinged swinging door which conforms to Section 1008.1 within 50 feet (15 240 mm).
No one seems alarmed that ONE server reboot can take down all the turnstiles at the same time?!?
Does that not scream there is a disaster waiting to happen at a moments notice if there is that little of resiliency and availability in their application architecture?