Mike - I do understand the meaning of 'pilot program' and that the new cars have already been purchased. It means that more cars will be purchased if the test is successful.
Maybe you don't know the meaning of 'fact' The 'facts' you posted to Hugh are in fact not facts but opinions because they are based on hypothetical, not actual conditions.

as a healthy young person i usually stand even when there are seats but I highly value that airspace over the seats and i imagine we all would if we thought about it.

despite what 'Hugh' says above, i think the "feeling of crowding" WILL be greater. Even at current ridership the really crowded trains will take on more people and instead of airspace over the seats, it will be solid with bodies--the very thought makes me panicky. and ridership is only going to increase... !!

at the very least, where would i hold my book if i was pressed front and back to people? i don't think i'd be a very happy rider.

Only the MTA could think of a way to make the subways more degrading. Do they not realize that there is an equation that shows that the more people are ill-treated the worse their behavior will be in turn. So by cramming a few more people in in the short run they will be escalating the level of anger and resentment which will have a net result of making the system less efficient in the end.

aren't most people standing during rush hour anyways?

another idea is to increase the number of doors per car. that will facilitate people getting in and out.

I hope the MTA is prepared to have its subway cars set on fire.

The first time this dumb idea causes a medical emergency for a sweet old grandmother it'll be abandoned.

Thank you New York State Legislature for not passing on congestion pricing...

"BUT it will eliminate conflicts of seating and idiots kicking their legs out and people trying to take up a seat with bags."

Word #21!

Man, some of my BIGGEST pet peeves concern public transportation discourtesies. *shudder*

For the life of me, I can never figure out how bags can be more tired than people? And what's with outstretched legs? Unless those legs are in casts, tuck those bad boys in; you're not in your living room! Come on, people!

I disagree with the no seat strategy because it doesn't really ease congestion, and movable chairs are more subject to breakage.

One easy way to reduce the number of riders is to have the city return to the neighborhood High School idea and so eliminate the "free transportation" for High School students (about 10% of rush hour riders, though officially there are only 600,000 passes given out).

At this time it seems like more than half of our high school students are commuting for free as part of the city's strategy for improving education.

Sometimes I see people carrying home bulky purchases on the subway and I grumble because they're in my way. Then sometimes they sit down and tuck their packages behind their legs or hold them on their laps, and I think: now that's an efficient use of space; by carrying that purchase home, that person is causing one less taxi or truck to crowd our streets.

I have listened to the program and read many of the posts. To the utopian transplants still in their honeymoon phase: FACT: the N train [B'way line] has had a 70-30% seat /stand for about 9months already. The stand section has NO SEATS, NADA, not even flip-ups like on the Lex. line [Mike in #82 is correct] the "pilot program" is a euphemism. This is a DONE DEAL.

FACT: about the caller on the Board for Transportation[?]: the Bloomberg and his wealthy posse really do have an ABSOLUTE CONTEMPT for the rest of us which is why they came up with this sado-masochistic idea for the "commuting problem". If they actually commuted --of course they don't--but if they did, they would have thought of something with safety for the commuter in mind. They would have also considered the physically and mentally disabled, the elderly, women with children, and the overall spike in the petty larceny and petty sexual assaults--which I remember well in the late '70's and '80's having been a victim any number of times. That doesn't factor in the Bloomberg vision because we are not people to the wealthy. We are disposible. And when we retire, die, or move away there are others who [are willing to] take our places.

Unfortunately, it's the private sector capitalists who run this CIty as well as the country. We have a Country that is Capitalist Democracy, this is the side we all prefer NOT to see,--- even if we are the "HAVE NOTS".

Besides the fact that this is completely ludicrous. This is a big safety hazard! There are going to be so many people on the platforms fighting to get into certain cars. This is stupid, and dangerous.

Obese men and women with ample derriers taking up the seat they're sitting on plus half of the seat to either side of them Have New Yorkers gotten more obese in the past ten years? Judging by those I see on the subway everyday, I'd have to say yes.

Erik asks: "And why aren't there more benches on the platforms? How much can a wooden bench cost???"

There were more benches in the not-too-distant past. The MTA removed them in the 1990s because homeless people begam to live on them.

Janet: "...cavelier and elitist..." Yes! Thankyou - just what I was thinking. And superficial and uncritical. An example of mediocre quality of the substitute moderator (NO EXCUSE, wnyc), and maybe cramming too many topics into one show.

It would also help if they designed cars that did not have poles or straps to hang onto near the doors. That would move people into the cars, away from the doors, making ingress and egress more efficient.

Thadeus comments: "If it's that bad then ridership would go down instead of continually increasing. What a bunch of whiners! I'm impressed with how many listeners are not listening. This is a pilot program that will attempt to address overcrowding and move commuters more quickly during rush hour (which is a good thing)."

You are obviously a transplant. 'Pilot program' is a code word for the new cars are already ordered and will replace the existing ones when they are retired no matter how unsuccessful the pilot or what the people who actually ride the trains think.

question which platforms/stations have riders waiting three trains before being able to board, which platforms/stations can accommodate that many people waiting. America the leader is following toyko and mexico city

If it's that bad then ridership would go down instead of continually increasing.

What a bunch of whiners! I'm impressed with how many listeners are not listening. This is a pilot program that will attempt to address overcrowding and move commuters more quickly during rush hour (which is a good thing). You may appreciate that there's more room during rush hour and that you get out of the tube faster.

His math was correct. He repeated the proposal that 4 out of a 10 car train would have the flex seats (50/car x 4 cars = 200 extra people per train.

I'm also impressed no one suggested transportation alternatives. There's just too many people using limited services during rush hour What's your solution?

Hugh asks: "What's the term for mathematical illiteracy -- innumeracy? People really don't get it. Yes, more people will be going through the doors per unit time. But for people standing already, the feeling simply _CANNOT_ feel different. ...And seated riders at rush inhibit free flow of standing passengers. Fact."

Hugh, Fact: People are not going to move through the doors faster because they are no seats. Fact: The additional people will inhibit movement just as much as seats. Fact: The people who would have to stand the longest if there were no seats are now the ones who now get the seats because they get on the train first.

And why aren't there more benches on the platforms? How much can a wooden bench cost???

I still don't get it.
Why not just run more frequent regular subway trains? Every 3 minutes during rush hour, instead of every 6 or 8 or 10 minutes?

And don't let the conductors answer any questions from people on the platforms.

David Aronowitz states: "Seatless subway - excellent idea, to move more people. I would love to stand all the time - I think MTA should make the whole train seatless during rush hours." and "The buses too - should be seatless"

David, you sould like a guy who needs to have his knees broken, then we'd see how much of a good idea you think this is.

In London for example (OK, no air conditioning)the seats are actually upholstered and padded. Bus seats in nyc are generally upholstered over hard plastic, which is much better than nothing. The new model subway cars do finally have modern suspension systems but this is combined with fewer and worse seats. Automobiles get more luxurious and comfortable over time and mass transit gets worse.
While I'm bitching, wouldn't it be possible for MTA to start putting in exhaust systems in the really hot station platforms? An exhaust system halfway between stairways would suck out hot air and pull fresh air down the stairwells. The stations were built before cars with AC which put all the heat they remove from inside the cars into the platforms, plus an extra per centage of heat from the inherent innefficiency of the AC system.

This subway plan seems poorly thought out and punitive to the "masses" (herds?) who cooperate with the City's requests that we reduce traffic and air pollution by using public transportation. The "pay-off" is that we get to stand in even more crowded cars, probably at increased fares, to boot!

Also, there are many people, not all of whom are visibly or "officially" disabled, who cannot stand on subways for long periods of time. Currently, even those who are clearly in need of a seat (e.g., pregnant, on crutches, etc.) are not offered seats by young and fit passengers who sit, seemingly oblivious to those around them. With seats even more limited, in designated front or rear cars, commuting to and from work will become even more unbearable than it is now.

The discussion on your show seems cavalier and elitist, showing little concern for quality-of-life issues which increasingly reduce NYC's population to the status of cattle.

The tax abatement scam ha gotten out of hand. I looked at a buildin yesterday where appartment are $600,000 and up and they had a 15 year tax abatement. 2 or 3 perfectly good tax paying houses were torn to build 9 luxury condos that will not pay taxes.
Obscene!!!

Robert #58 - I don't take my bike on the subway, or only rarely and never at peak or busy times. I don't think you see many people with bikes in the subway at rush hour. I hope not. Anyway, you don't pay for the bike but you could be told you can't get on at busy times.

Maybe cyclists use it instead of a bus or other connector so the train is used for one part of the trip, and the bicycle for the other. Or something like that.

I hope the deodorant companies have enough in their budget for advertising on the MTA.

I already can't stand teh density; hard on my nerves.

I agree with Barbara - walking or just leaving NY. How many more stresses can you impose - tiny expensive living quarters, parks overcrowded - no breathing room - MTA stole our money in the first place!

MTA is already on the road to seatless subway cars. The new cars on the N line have only lengthwise benches without even individual seats. The old cars had a combination of lenghwise and crosswise back to back seats. The new cars therefore have 20 fewer seats than the old ones. Which means that people start standing about two stops earlier on the way to Manhattan. The subway needs a modern signal system that would allow less headway and more trains, not torturing passengers for more capacity. Of course the appalling condition of subway stations, particularly outside Manhattan, is further evidence of a century of underinvestment in the subway system.

The buses too - should be seatless.

Just another clarifying development: NYC
is for the wealthy and the people who serve them.
As the non-wealthy are spun out further from
the gentrified city center, their commute
becomes proportionally less tolerable. The
masters, of course, take taxis between condo
and office.

Joan, 6 of the 10 cars are still going to be the 'traditional' kind with seats, so 4x50=200.

I think it might actually be EASIER to move without seats because the seats are a limiting factor on movement. The question is though: Will this lead to the car being/feeling more crowded? I doubt it. I've been crammed into a car so tight that I could feel my bones adjusting to compensate for the compression on my body and that's with seats.

What about mothers with babies and small kids? They are always being shafted. No seats, no way to get out, alarms going off when they do, missing trains cause they can't get some lazy MTA employee to open the door for them. It bows my mind.

Why doesn't the city do more to shift work hours? And shift workplaces? Move City offices to Queens or Staten Island?

I will see EchoBeach segregate by sex and raise it to Saudi Arabia standards. If women cannot drive then they will all have to ride the subways and men drive. Separate the sexes and then we will solve the groping problem while providing jobs for all the new therapist required to get people to adjust.

At 55 years old, standing will become less and less possible as I get older.

I can see I'll be taking the bus. The rich developers getting all the money from the additional condos should be paying impact fees and not getting away with murder

I think this is a good practical idea. New York City subway trains are not going to become any less crowded in the immediate future. At least this way they can be crowded, but more efficient.

It is hard to eliminate all the seats, maybe they should think of making cars with opening and closing seats, so they close if not necessary for more room, and one mor ecomment, they can announce on what side of the train is located the platform so peaple can prepare in time to get off the train.

Which reminds me Chris O...Why are people on the subway with their bikes? Why don't they just ride their bikes!! Do they pay for the bike? If they were in Milan they would have to pay for the bike. After all they do take up space.

There needs to be more investment in the infrastructure of New York City, especially public transportation. No more tax breaks for the developers of luxury condos.

I know people mentioned groping, but what about pick-pockets? With people crammed in like sardines it will only be easier for the nimble-fingered to lighten our pockets. Rush hour would become prime-time for crime.

It's my understanding that the cars are not seatless, they only have flip-down seats.

It's my understanding that the cars are not without seats, they only have flip down seats. This makes a bit more sense especially considering disabled riders.

I really wish this speaker wold be forced to take into consideration the many disabled passengers who rely on the already discriminatory mass transit system in what is the most inaccessible city of its size in the US.

very interesting show. loving all the good ideas being put forth.

It wouldn't be an issue if people were more polite and had decent etiquette. Whenever you see a crowded subway car that you can't get into there is typically lots of standing room in the middle of the car by the seats but people just refuse to move further into the car so the rest of us have to wait on the platform for the next train. Apparently, those people are more important than the rest of us and have beeter places to go. As you can see, it really irks me!

Bicycle, bicycle, bicycle - like they do in Amsterdam, after all this is New Amsterdam.

this is also a safety issue, buildings are only allowed to have so many people, subway cars are no different. How are you going ot ge tpeople out sfaetly in an emergency? Why should my life be in danger because the MTA can't figure out how to build a subway line for 50 years to fix this problem. I smeel a lawsuit here

How often do you actually get a seat at rush hour anyway? Now everybody on the car will be equally inconvenienced.

What's the term for mathematical illiteracy -- innumeracy?

People really don't get it. Yes, more people will be going through the doors per unit time. But for people standing already, the feeling simply _CANNOT_ feel different. It's raw math.

Most riders stand during rush hour. Fact.

And seated riders at rush inhibit free flow of standing passengers. Fact.

Joan notes: "Uh, 50 people per car on a 10 car train is 500 additional people, not 200."

Maybe it's the 'new math'. Or maybe this is why things don't work here.

Seatless subway - excellent idea, to move more people.

I would love to stand all the time - I think MTA should make the whole train seatless during rush hours.

Mayor Bloomberg is right - he should have control of NYC TA just like Board of education and no raise to the fare.

Sounds like a cattle equation - 50 more people per car.

i hate this idea.
i get on at first stop so i always have a seat in the morning.

It's similar to the building the freeways: If you build it they will come! Won't this just make more people choose the subway and all that will happen is the cars will be packed and the platform will remain congested and the problem of congestion will not be solved.

This is an asinine idea that proves what I've always expected: the directors of the MTA do NOT take the subway.

Will the end of the line have a welcoming sign that reads "Work makes you free!"?

If there are 50 more people on each car, how will the ones in the middle get on and off at their stops? People already refuse to move to the middle. Maybe the amswer is to move the seats to the middle! I think the people who make these decisions should be forced to ride the subway. That's the real problem; the decision makers do not have any idea what it's like to ride the subway.

Will the extra weight have any effect on the outside elevated bridges?

What about people who live at the beginning of of the subway line? Are some people going to forced to stand all the way from the Bronx to midtown/downtown on the lex line? That would suck.

Isn't this directly related to the development boom? As more high-rise condo bldgs go up, our neighborhoods get denser, and -- surprise! -- more people are using the subway. Is there any limit to the population density Manhattan can sustain? Developers think not.

Great, take away the very last vestige of the idea that you are transporting human beings, and make it into a true livestock car. At least now, I have some hope of sitting sometime.

If their purpose is to clear the subways of all but the most able-bodied, this would be a good way to go about it. Pregnant women, small children, the elderly, the injured and otherwise disabled-- all eliminated from blocking the flow of commerce. Social Darwinism, served pretty raw.

we need to test new solutions; stop dismissing alternatives. Let's try it first.

Heck, let's go one step further and segregate by sex to prevent groping (as they do in some Asian cities).

Uh, 50 people per car on a 10 car train is 500 additional people, not 200.

how about getting people to step away from the doors, move into the center of the cars.
we've all seen trains empty in the middle but can't get in the door.

The caller suggests that since she does not get on toward the end of the line, the new program would make no difference to her. She als ohas a short ride.

I think this is a bad idea - the rides should be made more humane, tolerable and EFFICIENT, not crowded ... Can you imagine being stuck like a pack of sardines... or cattle ... in a stalled train, pregnant, or elderly or disabled...groped, and pick-pocketed (Ooops, my newly bought soone to go up in price Metrocard was just lifted)...

Once again MTA has its head buried in the sand. They're sacrificing safety over profit. I don't understand why they would the lives of passengers at risk by not addressing the more pressing issue that long plague NYC subways systems-emergency radio communications for first responders and improveing PA system in all cars to to provide passengers of needed information. Adding 50 additional passengers will not solve congestion issue. It will only increase the problem and safety of the passengers.

I think this is a stupid idea; is it really going to save that much space and time? I think of the few times when I had to go to work on a day where I was sick, or worked an 8 hour day on my feet, and was so grateful to be able to sit down. It's bad enough having to ride the subway when it's packed, but having the chance to maybe get a seat at transfer stations can be the only thing that gets you through an otherwise uncomfortable commute.

Maybe if the MTA actually gets that SECOND AVE SUBWAY line built that will alleviate some of the problem... at least on the 4,5,6.

Disabled only car? What about their caregivers? Family? My dad's disabled, does he ride all by himself on the disabled car?

Also, even though my dad's disabled. He is very stubborn about being identified as such. He'd never get into the "disabled car".

This whole idea is very bad. I'm so tired of getting the short end of these economic hard times. Even the trains on the LIRR are overcrowded because they're making the trains shorter.

Incredibly good idea -- the skinny 1 train, not yet subject to the wide-car upgrade, constantly has a problem with people piling around the doors and not "moving to the middle of the car" as we're told.

Creating a standing-room-only subways on the Broadway line would provide some much-needed relief.

On the subject of groping, Mexico City and Tokyo have wome only cars.

I am always amazed at people who rush to grab a seat only to get off in a couple of stops. Once there are some provisions made for the people who really can't stand this is a great idea.

Statistically (depressing though this sounds) it will probably make no difference to groping.

BUT it will eliminate conflicts of seating and idiots kicking their legs out and people trying to take up a seat with bags.

AND the feeling of crowding will not be that much greater. People will be evenly distributed over the new area. The _feeling_ of crowding will be the same for people standing.

Groping is so sexist. For all the groping I do I only get groped every now and then by other men!

Leshka states: "We'd fit more riders on the train if half of the men who sit close their legs, sit up straight and stop taking up two seats and a space in front of them."

And we'd have even more room if women didn't wheel their SUV-sized baby cariiages onto the subway. Isn't it technically illegal to do that? I was on a SRO car the other day and one woman had the carriage completely spanning one door.

I guess we'll have 30 of us standing while one guy leans on the pole, so we have nothing to hold on to when the train lurches, and we all go flying?

How about some new rules/words to the wise for riders other than don't lean on the doors - no one pays any mind to that one anyway.

Any word on which line(s) they'll have the pilot program on? I'm guessing the 4/5/6, since they're the most over-crouded.

Make a separate car for strollers instead. They will be more comfortable and it will ease crowding inside cars as well as the process of getting on and off the train.

what about seats for pregnant women and the elderly?

it's bad enough as it is that young and healthy riders rarely give up their seats to those who can't stand for long periods of time.

re my post (11) - I meant to say - I was rough shouldered standing up and PREGNANT!

I am currently expecting a baby and had to stop working after 35 weeks because I couldn't physically handle the morning and evening commutes. I can't imagine what I would have done if there hadn't been any seats in some of the cars.

I have a vascular disease and cannot stand for long periods. I moved to the end of the subway line so that I could always get a seat.

Oh, please, I used to stand up all the time on the ride to work, and actually had a *woman* rough shoulder me for more room! People are idiots no matter what...

Right on, Leshka. I actually though, "Great! now the half of the men will have to stop taking up two seats and a space in front of them will have to stand up instead."

Could we consider a "disabled only" car that is always at the front or back? It would probably require the honor system. We'll see how that works out.

There will still be folding seats right? I see them on the 6 subway cars. People (usually) just stand up when it gets crowded.

Remember the funny lady who called about the subway trouble several weeks ago and she said some of the men sit like they have a Fabreje egg instead of their personal parts on the train and take up two seats?

That lady was so funny. Thank you for the laugh!!

HORRIBLE!!!

I hurt my feet last year - already it is hard enough to get around if you are disabled - and how about pregnant wormen and old people.

Must've been clueless male bureaucrats who never take the subway who came up with this.

Yeah, then maybe, when people see the homeless lying on the floor instead of taking up subway seats, we'll actually do something to help them? Hmmm, .... nah, I doubt it.

Leshka,

What are you referring to about weight? How many people would fit in the car and it is heavier to pull or about someone whom is overweight that takes up 2 seats on the train?

We'd fit more riders on the train if half of the men who sit close their legs, sit up straight and stop taking up two seats and a space in front of them.

I know, I'm a crotchedy old woman at 30.

If the "standing room only" cars are attached to conventional cars where people who need to sit can do so, then it should be a "good" idea. We'll still have a lot of riders waiting longer to get a train.

Question: Is weight an issue in this case?

Will there be cars with seating for disabled, elderly, not everyone can stand the whole time?

This is a great idea because I'm tired of giving up my seat. As a young man you can never seat ever.

However those days when I do sit it sucks when you have to give up your seat and do the right thing.

With the seatless trains I don't have to deal with giving up my seat. :)

They're called CATTLE CARS. (nothing new)