Our vendor executed a system reboot that caused a shut down of the turnstiles
twitter.com
twitter.com
It makes absolutely no sense, because the main thing is to keep the traffic moving, not to engorge it.
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.
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?
"NYPD say no access"
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? ;)
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?
The 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.
This is a good argument to just remove physical turnstiles and rely upon an honor system.
> 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).
I think the compliance rate would be very poor in NYC
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.
>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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)