Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bat_in_the_stacks t1_jbro9ni wrote

The decision makers on this are clueless.

No one needs open gangways between cars. We know to spread out on the platform.

No one needs red and green light indicators to warn of the train's departure. It's the subway, not the LIRR.

Wider doors just mean fewer seats.

"Additional accessible seating" - how many wheelchair bound people will be in one train car? Between poor elevator coverage and wheelchair bound active adults being a small percent of the population, I think the current cars have enough flip up seats or space at the ends.

"Brighter lighting and signage" - hopefully not compared to the more recent trains. They're already as bright as the sun compared to the older models still running on the R line.

−13

AwesomeWhiteDude t1_jbrxa14 wrote

> No one needs open gangways between cars. We know to spread out on the platform.

The point of open gangways is to cram more people into the train

>No one needs red and green light indicators to warn of the train's departure. It's the subway, not the LIRR.

The door lights are an accessibility feature.

>Wider doors just mean fewer seats.

Wider doors means more people can move through them, hopefully lowering time the train spends in the station. That's the idea anyway.

>"Additional accessible seating" - how many wheelchair bound people will be in one train car? Between poor elevator coverage and wheelchair bound active adults being a small percent of the population, I think the current cars have enough flip up seats or space at the ends.

This is a joke. The amount of accessible stations is only going to go up. The accessible seating is flip-up so...???

>"Brighter lighting and signage" - hopefully not compared to the more recent trains. They're already as bright as the sun compared to the older models still running on the R line.

Hard to argue that point, they should change the color temperature of the lighting to a more warmer one.

12