Today’s Headlines

  • Cuomo’s MTA: Riders Gasp for Breath in Dark, Stifling, Stalled-Out F Train (AMNYPost)
  • …Meanwhile, in the Morning Rush, More Than a Dozen Lines Were Delayed (NYT, Crain’s)
  • Why Is It Taking So Long to Replace the Oldest Subway Cars in the MTA’s Fleet? (NYT)
  • De Blasio “Not Putting Time or Energy” Into the Best Traffic-Cutting Policy Out There (Politico, NewsPost, AMNYAdvance)
  • But He’s Still Putting Time and Energy Into His Long Car Trips to Ride a Stationary Bike (PoliticoPost)
  • Cristina Furlong of Make Queens Safer Will Run for the Council Seat Vacated By Julissa Ferreras (TL)
  • NYT Endorses Fair Fares
  • Hit-and-Run Driver Critically Injures Columbia Student on Riverside Drive at 115th Street (DNAPost)
  • NYPD Throws the Book at Teen Driver Who Dragged and Seriously Injured Officer in Brooklyn (Post)
  • State Senate Passes Bill Making It a Felony When Unlicensed Drivers Injure or Kill Someone (TL)
  • Fox5‘s Arthur Chi’en Doesn’t Traffic in Windshield Perspective

More headlines at Streetsblog USA

  • J

    You know you’re tanking when the people that voted for you agree with the NY Post headlines.

    De Blasio justifies his gym hypocrisy by citing his climate leadership and in the same breath shirks any responsibility for actually leading. What a schmuck.

  • Ken Dodd

    “NYPD Throws the Book at Teen Driver Who Dragged and Seriously Injured Officer in Brooklyn” — well at least we now know the exact circumstances under which the NYPD is willing to throw the book at someone after a vehicular assault.

  • Reader

    And the sad thing is that his climate leadership is… what exactly? Sure, there are some good policies related to buildings and greenhouse gas emissions, but actual leadership requires, you know, LEADING. Twelve-mile trips to the gym while he asks other people to sacrifice is the opposite of leadership.

  • Larry Littlefield

    Both NY Times links go to the same article, not the one about replacing subway cars.

    But I’ve got some news for you. Historically New York City Transit replaced subway cars after 40 years, but it can’t do that now. When it re-borrowed the same money for the 2000 to 2004 capital plan, it ended up bonding those subway cars for 50 years. So that has to be the average lifespan now.

    Even Russianoff was opposed to that part of the deal, even it though the bonds were for capital expenditures — on subway cars that were already 20 years old.

  • 1ifbyrain2ifbytrain

    Time again for my lament:

    As someone with a longish commute on the D train in the morning, I am so happy to have our “old” cars with the “old” seating configuration that greatly increases my chances of getting a seat.

    The bench style seating in the “new” cars on the F line for example will only provide seats for 6 (more likely 5) people as compared to 10 in the old 3-2-2-3 configuration.

    I am sure the square footage allows for more passengers in theory but somewhere shouldn’t ease and comfort figure into the equation?

  • djx

    I was about to say the same thing.

  • AMH

    Not to mention better lighting. The softer glow of the old cars sure beats the harsh glare of the new ones.

  • vnm

    I disagree. I have a 20-minute trip on the D train in the mornings from uptown and at my station I’m lucky be able to pack onto the train, much less entertain ideas about getting a seat. The newer cars would at least give me a better likelihood of getting onto the train’s standing areas.

    Also I love those new cool digital line maps . . . that cars on other lines have.

  • NYCyclist

    Regarding the NYT article about replacing the C train cars, why is it like reinventing the wheel every time there’s a new order of subway cars? The article says the “procurement process was flawed” and that the new cars being built by Bombardier had “small cracks in weld joints.” Why shouldn’t a new order for cars be the same as recent previously ordered cars (like those on the J line) that are in operation and work?

  • Flakker

    literally flying around the country repeating “progressive” and claiming New York is leading in things it already led in under Bloomberg, or claiming to have led the way on ideas other cities did years before.

  • Larry Littlefield

    There really are only a few options in the world, and the MTA tries to spread money around lest they end up dependent on only one vendor. The best is Kawasaki, but they don’t want to rely on them exclusively because monopolies always rip you off.

    The other options are Alstom, from France, and Siemens, from Germany.

    Those 52-year-old cars? I wish we had Budd back at its Red Lion plant in Philadelphia.

  • Flakker

    I trashed the state legislature in comments yesterday but let’s give credit to a genuine Good One, Gianaris, who is getting it done on punishing unlicensed drivers when the city, DMV, cops, and DAs are determined to give these people every opportunity to kill someone and get away with it.

  • Joe R.

    Right. We can moan all we want about having 52-year old cars in service but the fact we do is a testament to the great job the people at Budd did building the R32s. Although the goal is to have the newest trains last 50 years in service, I’m dubious this will happen. The old adage “they don’t make them like they used to” is often true. The R32s were very basic transportation appliances designed to last. About the only thing superior on the new trains is their AC motors which require far less maintenance. Put AC motors on an R32 body and you might have something which could last 75 years in service.

  • Joe R.

    The general idea is each new generation of subway cars should incorporate improvements over the prior generation. I’m actually glad the MTA is being more forward looking on designs. For a long time after the R44/R46 debacle the shell-shocked MTA stuck with “tried and true”. While this produced reliable cars like the R62 and R68, I can’t help but wonder if we might have been better off trying to continue to innovate.