3 ms·

It's unfortunate that such a lovely document seems to have produced a terrible subway system. Having regularly taken the subway in Beijing, London, Washington D

It's unfortunate that such a lovely document seems to have produced a terrible subway system. Having regularly taken the subway in Beijing, London, Washington D.C., Tokyo. The New York subway seems almost deliberately difficult to navigate at times. Subway signs are often misleading. Lacking in places or just outright missing. Perhaps they focused too much on the appearance without considering usability.

danso 11y ago
Well, the subway system predates the Standards Manual by about 70 to 100 years (depends if you count the system from the first trains or its first underground section)...so it's wrong to infer that too many resources were devoted to the visual design rather than logistics and construction of the system over the decades. The system is complicated and convoluted because of both its age and its coverage. Certainly, the signage could be better in some places...is there a better way to sort out the mess in the midtown stations (Times Square, Herald Square, etc)? Sure...but those stations connect so many routes and other systems that some confusion will be inherent.
- Shivetya 11y ago
  Combine that with a bureaucratic nightmare and not much gets done to fix issues or improve obvious areas. I remember recently reading about the amount of trash on the tracks and it was because antiquated equipment and horrid procurement processes topped off by some really annoying work rules. http://www.amny.com/transit/nyc-subway-stations-garbage-dumps-fail-to-meet-cleaning-standards-according-to-audit-1.10437148 http://www.amny.com/transit/nyc-subway-stations-garbage-dump...
oinksoft 11y ago
The MTA has multiple tracks and express trains, that alone makes it a world apart from the DC Metro.
fennecfoxen 11y ago
The core problem is that the New York subway system isn't one subway system, it's three: Interboro Rapid Transit (IRT), which built a lot of elevated lines from the Bronx into Manhattan (all the Manhattan lines have been torn down, including the second and third avenue el, which were never replaced with the promised Second Avenue Subway)... they ran shorter, narrower train cars and their remaining lines turned into the 1234567 and Times Square Shuttle (internally, the 0) Brooklyn-Manhattan transit (BMT), which ran a bunch of trains into Brooklyn... and the Independent Subway System (IND), which was run by the city with BMT car standards and was responsible for the Manhattan portions of the ABCDEF trains, the G, and the Rockaway Shuttle (internally the H) and bought a few more rail lines in Brooklyn as well (the tail ends of the A and the F). If you look up the maps, the places where the subway really looks awkwardly constructed, the stations are sprawling, the tracks are at funny angles... it's because they were competitors. Why does the 2/3 cross the L out in Brooklyn without a transfer when the stations are right on top of each other? They were run by competitors. Why do the F/A/C/G shun the other lines as they plow through downtown Brooklyn? Why do you need to walk from the 6 to the F at 63rd Street? Why can't you transfer between the Hewes Street and Broadway (G) stations if they're right on top of each other? Why can't anyone figure out how to navigate Court Street? Why, for years, was there a transfer between the BDFM and downtown 6 at Bleeker St, but not the uptown 6? (That silly little bubble in the subway map.) To this day there is exactly one spot where an IRT train shares a platform with a BMT train (Queensboro Plaza). And there are essentially two places where trains transfer between the old IND and BMT tracks (at the Manhattan Bridge, and Queens Plaza -- the third, under Central Park between the Q and the F, occasionally figures in maintenance-related detours). The good news is that New York is lousy with subway stations, and if there's a disruption on one line, there's a very good chance you can still get where you're going on another. The bad news is that's fundamentally confusing.
- beejiu 11y ago
  You can argue much the same about London underground -- it too is a mishmash of previously competing railway lines, and has grown in complexity to include all manner of railways -- some cut-and-cover, some deep-tunnel, some overground. For the uninitiated, it is a very complex system. The problem with our system is that it has to inherit decisions made over 150 years ago in the steam age.
untog 11y ago
The NYC system is complex, but not without considerable benefits. For example, neither London nor DC (don't know about others) have both express and local trains. They're incredibly useful, but it took me a long time to grasp it all when I first arrived in the city. Now I wouldn't want it to change.

danso 11y ago

Well, the subway system predates the Standards Manual by about 70 to 100 years (depends if you count the system from the first trains or its first underground section)...so it's wrong to infer that too many resources were devoted to the visual design rather than logistics and construction of the system over the decades. The system is complicated and convoluted because of both its age and its coverage. Certainly, the signage could be better in some places...is there a better way to sort out the mess in the midtown stations (Times Square, Herald Square, etc)? Sure...but those stations connect so many routes and other systems that some confusion will be inherent.

Shivetya 11y ago
Combine that with a bureaucratic nightmare and not much gets done to fix issues or improve obvious areas. I remember recently reading about the amount of trash on the tracks and it was because antiquated equipment and horrid procurement processes topped off by some really annoying work rules. http://www.amny.com/transit/nyc-subway-stations-garbage-dumps-fail-to-meet-cleaning-standards-according-to-audit-1.10437148 http://www.amny.com/transit/nyc-subway-stations-garbage-dump...

oinksoft 11y ago

The MTA has multiple tracks and express trains, that alone makes it a world apart from the DC Metro.

fennecfoxen 11y ago

The core problem is that the New York subway system isn't one subway system, it's three: Interboro Rapid Transit (IRT), which built a lot of elevated lines from the Bronx into Manhattan (all the Manhattan lines have been torn down, including the second and third avenue el, which were never replaced with the promised Second Avenue Subway)... they ran shorter, narrower train cars and their remaining lines turned into the 1234567 and Times Square Shuttle (internally, the 0) Brooklyn-Manhattan transit (BMT), which ran a bunch of trains into Brooklyn... and the Independent Subway System (IND), which was run by the city with BMT car standards and was responsible for the Manhattan portions of the ABCDEF trains, the G, and the Rockaway Shuttle (internally the H) and bought a few more rail lines in Brooklyn as well (the tail ends of the A and the F). If you look up the maps, the places where the subway really looks awkwardly constructed, the stations are sprawling, the tracks are at funny angles... it's because they were competitors. Why does the 2/3 cross the L out in Brooklyn without a transfer when the stations are right on top of each other? They were run by competitors. Why do the F/A/C/G shun the other lines as they plow through downtown Brooklyn? Why do you need to walk from the 6 to the F at 63rd Street? Why can't you transfer between the Hewes Street and Broadway (G) stations if they're right on top of each other? Why can't anyone figure out how to navigate Court Street? Why, for years, was there a transfer between the BDFM and downtown 6 at Bleeker St, but not the uptown 6? (That silly little bubble in the subway map.) To this day there is exactly one spot where an IRT train shares a platform with a BMT train (Queensboro Plaza). And there are essentially two places where trains transfer between the old IND and BMT tracks (at the Manhattan Bridge, and Queens Plaza -- the third, under Central Park between the Q and the F, occasionally figures in maintenance-related detours). The good news is that New York is lousy with subway stations, and if there's a disruption on one line, there's a very good chance you can still get where you're going on another. The bad news is that's fundamentally confusing.

beejiu 11y ago
You can argue much the same about London underground -- it too is a mishmash of previously competing railway lines, and has grown in complexity to include all manner of railways -- some cut-and-cover, some deep-tunnel, some overground. For the uninitiated, it is a very complex system. The problem with our system is that it has to inherit decisions made over 150 years ago in the steam age.

untog 11y ago

The NYC system is complex, but not without considerable benefits. For example, neither London nor DC (don't know about others) have both express and local trains. They're incredibly useful, but it took me a long time to grasp it all when I first arrived in the city. Now I wouldn't want it to change.