Systems Analysis: Subway Station Redesign

A systems analysis and design proposal for the Manhattan-bound platform of the Kingston-Throop subway station

Teaching the station to care:

Miriam Lakes April 2012

The Manhattan-bound platform of the Kingston-Throop subway station is not particularly memorable. Dark, dirty, spidery, scary, unsafe and rat-infested are words used by its everyday passengers to describe the physical ap-pearance of the station, and each of these words, beyond describing the visual, evokes in us a particular feeling or emotion. Together these words extend beyond the physical and into the actual affect of the station, and under-standing the relationship between the physical and the non-physical elements of the station is key to reimagining what the station could be.

The system at play here at the Kingston Throop Subway station is two fold – it is a physical system and, unbeknownst to me until last Saturday, it is also an emotional system. Entering the station, for many of the passengers, means coming up against an unpleasant touch point with city infrastructure. The rats and garbage on the station platform become symbols of the dysfunctional inner workings of a city, indicating to the riders that the station is not a prior-ity in the subway system at large. Interviewing 17 subway riders on a Saturday morning, I discovered that these subway trains carry more than just physi-cal people – they carry the emotions, perceptions and misunderstandings of a system at great risk for spiraling out of control.

In its simplest form, riders have stopped caring, as they see no one working to improve the conditions around them and feel no incentive to participate themselves, the loop of not caring goes on to effect MTA’s upkeep of the station and thus the way in which future passengers see the station as well. This general resistance towards self-organization and change, on the part of the passengers as well as MTA, has put the station users at the mercy of adjectives like scary, dark, and unsafe. The station, in essence, needs to become something people can care about again. The following analysis and proposed modifications to the Kingston-Throop station system are attempts to overcome these reinforcing loops, hopefully empowering riders and improving the information flows within the system so that the station can evolve to better suit everyone’s needs.

darkdirtyscaryspidery



//Introduction:

Miriam Lakes 27 April 2012 Page 1

The parameters of the Kingston Throop station system lie in the physical size of the station as well as the cost of riding the trains and the cost of maintaining and running the station. Costs inherent in maintaining the station include cleaning, staffing the agent

booth, running the lights, and keeping the ticket turnstiles functional. The number of trash cans also be seen as a parameter, but even when the trashcans are empty there is still garbage on the platform and the tracks, indicating that solution to cleaning the station lies deeper within the system. Therefore, even if MTA invested in more trash-cans, the system would likely not be able to kick start into a more functional state until other components were adjusted as well

The buffers within the subway station include the number of seats, the amount of platform space, and the number of ticket purchasing stations. Buffers also include the cleanliness of the platform, and similarly how much

trash can build up before people see the platform as dirty. A tolerance for bad odors, visible rats, and reduced safety are all buffers that influence the way people feel about the station – with an increase in any of these ele-ments (each of which can be considered a flow), the buffer between feeling comfortable and uncomfortable, or safe and unsafe, becomes smaller and smaller. With a smaller buffer in the emotional state of the riders, any amount of trash can cause people to lose faith in the subway station and lose any feeling of ownership or pride they might have had. These buffers must be increased, however improving passenger feelings towards the station requires a paradigm shift in itself. A buffer also exists in the amount of information given to the subway riders, and finding the balance between too little and too much. With more information given to riders about delays, arrival times, and upcoming construction, there is less chance of frustration on the part of the riders. This is the kind of buffer that can easily be solved with better signage regarding construction as well as a posted schedule.

The stocks and flows of the subway station exist in the movement of people in and out of the station and the train, and the various paths people take along this

route. The attendant booth, an intended point of interaction between MTA staff and passengers, is located off the platform, and many interviewees mentioned that once you are on the platform you cannot ask the agent a ques-tion. This physical distance between the agent and the platform disrupts information flow within the system (See Information flows, p.4). Similarly, most of the signage in the station is located off the platform. A simple solution to this stock and flow problem would be to move both the agent booth and copies of the map and other signage closer to the platform.

The movement of garbage on and off the platform can also be seen as a system of stocks and flows. Garbage cannot flow as it is intended to, from passenger to trash can to dump, if people do not use the trash can. Repair-ing this block in the system requires new rules and new reinforcing feedback loops, addressed later on.

//Parameters



//Buffers

//Stocks and Flows


“They aren’t taking care of it, probably because of the

neighborhood it’s in.”— Subway rider, boy, age 7

Delays in the station are closely linked to the stocks and flows: with a delay in trains, the stock of passengers on the platform increases. When there is no schedule posted, there is a delay in information flow to the passengers. Delays abound in communication between passengers and

MTA staff – to get the station cleaned you have to call a phone number listed off the platform, and this message must then be relayed to the janitor, likely a multi-step process. Delays in cleaning cause oscillations in the ap-pearance of the platform, and thus oscillations in the emotions of the passengers as to how they feel about their station. Passengers who see a dirty platform have less incentive to put their trash in the right place, which leads to more trash and more oscillations in behavior. These oscillations in behavior lead to system failure, both on the part of the passengers and the MTA, eventually making the system dysfunctional for all involved.

Balancing feedback loops exist in the presence of MTA staff at the station. For example, a woman mentioned to me that she feels

unsafe without security here – with staff present people feel more secure and there is also less of a chance of someone acting out as they know they are being watched. Having staff on site can help to balance what would otherwise become self-reinforcing loops: trash buildup, broken ticket machines, and doubts about safety can be resolved when MTA staff or even a volunteer from the community is present. When there is no one present to monitor the station, the loop runs amok. It’s interesting to note that MTA removed the agent booth on the Queens-bound side of the station in order to cut costs. Instead of saving money, they have actually just replaced the cost of the agent with the cost of additional janitorial service.

Self-reinforcing loops are persistent in the station. Beyond the already mentioned reinforcing loop of trash, the deep-est and widest spread is the perceptual loop: the feelings of

helplessness and frustration with the system itself. Five individual riders told me, “People don’t care.” People, to them, meant everyone from passengers to MTA staff. The act of not caring is an emotional state, one in which you become almost numb to your surroundings after a certain amount of frustration experienced earlier on. How-ever, the fact that passengers recognize their frustrations indicates they do care, but that they are only made aware of this when they are given a chance to speak. Littering may in fact be a form of voicing these frustrations, however a buildup of trash leads MTA to conclude that if people don’t care to pick up their trash, there is no point in cleaning or upgrading the station and its services. Riders are all too aware of the trickle-down policy in place on station renovations – “You know why they haven’t fixed our station yet?” one woman said. “Because we’re far from Manhattan, and look at us. It’s our neighborhood.” Her perception of MTA is just as clouded as theirs is of their riders, and with the continued lack of communication between the two sides the situation becomes even more polarized. These self-reinforcing loops can really only be addressed with a paradigm shift in the system as a whole. Change must come from within the station, and that means from the passengers.



//Delays

//Balancing feedback loops

//Self-reinforcing feedback loops


“When people see someone sitting there, they don’t litter as much.” — Janitor for Kingston-Throop

and Utica stations

Information flows in the system are broken at nearly

every point. Little communication goes on between staff and passengers, and passengers themselves rarely talk to one another. With no posted schedule or arrival times available to the passengers, the sta-tion agents control the flow of information that makes it onto the platform. Also absent in the information flow is recognition of the station manager and ad-ditional staff. With no signage, and the staff rarely at the station because of cuts in MTA budgets, pas-sengers are unaware of MTA’s responsibilities, and to them it appears that MTA does not put any money into maintaining the station. Increasing the ease of speaking with staff in person, or even putting a face to the station manager, will help passengers understand it is possible to voice complaints about the station. However, it should not only be the responsibility of the passengers: if MTA officials made it a priority to speak regularly with their passengers they might become aware of the miscommunication that has led to frus-tration on both sides.

Rules, both explicit and implicit, are almost absent from the station, and even if they existed there are no systems in place to enforce them. Not posting the rules is another self-reinforcing loop – no rules mean no enforcement, and likewise unenforced rules mean no rules at all. With the

inability to enforce implicit rules like littering, the rules are not really rules. The lack of rules also blurs the line of who owns and maintains the station, causing passengers to blame MTA and MTA to blame passengers. Riders regard the station as an unwelcome symbol of the way the city views them, thus their incentive to keep it clean and create their own rules is next to none. However, creating rules from higher up in the system and then posting them on the dirty walls will only reinforce the belief that MTA is not willing to interact with passengers in person. As the janitor mentioned, removing the station agent from the Queens-bound platform made people litter more, meaning that the presence of an enforcer validates even implicit rules. With no indication that MTA will be building a replacement booth for the one removed, enforcement must come from the passengers themselves and out of caring for their surroundings and their station.

Taking rule enforcing into their own hands is a needed step in the direction of self-organization amongst passengers. As it stands, there is nothing within this station

that connects it to the neighborhood and the people who use it everyday, and riders have come to identify with a sad, rat-infested station. Major physical improvements to the station would have to come from the top, and MTA has made no move to do so. Thus, rules must be created to try and fix the broken elements. The first step in creating rules is creating an enforcing mechanism, and this will need to come from the passengers. Even before this, however, it will be necessary to encourage a sense of ownership – passengers will have to want to improve the station. In essence, we must awaken the players in the system to care about themselves, and the station will learn from them.




//Information flows

//Rules

//Self-organization

Error analysis of information flowThe two yellow lines indicate the gaps in information flow between the agent booth and the platform, and the subway map and the platform. Moving a copy of the map to the platform, and the agent booth between the turnstiles would remove these information rifts.

The goals of the Kingston-Throop station are surprisingly similar for both passengers and MTA staff: both want an efficient connection to public transportation. Riders benefit from efficiency, as does the reputation of the Transit Authority. The problem in this system is not one of opposing goals, but

instead missing information flows alerting passengers and MTA employees that they in fact share the same goals. What harm could it do to show that?

It is impossible for the passengers of the Kingston-Throop station and the staff of the MTA to continue to work against one another and expect the system to

recover on its own. Inherent to fixing this broken system is admitting to ourselves that all of us who use this station are in fact a part of it, and that if the station is hurting we must be hurting too. With this in mind, the reverse must also be true – if we begin to care about ourselves and our environment then the station, as an extension of us, will begin to care about itself as well. The key to improving the station is recognizing our role and our importance in its existence – we as passengers control the future of MTA for without our business they would have no reason to operate. In recognizing our roles and alerting others of this change in our awareness, we can cause a paradigm shift before our very own eyes.



//Paradigm Shifts

//Goals

Passenger goals MTA goals

On time trains

On time trainsSafety

Safety

Clean platform

Available staff

Easy to board train

Customer satisfaction

cleanlinessefficiency

efficiencyaffordability

Placing signs within the station showing the overlap in MTA and passenger goals might help both sides see that they want the same things from the system. This idea emerged from interviews with staff and passengers, asking what it is they would improve about the station. Not surprisingly, their answers are almost identical.


people shouldn’t litter

people shouldn’t litter



Please be respectful of others. Kingston-Throop is my station too.

- Mary, Subway rider for 45 years

Please don’t litter or throw trash. Kingston-Throop is my station too.

- Zachary, Subway rider for 6 years

Please clean up after yourself.Kingston-Throop is my station too.

- Brian, Subway rider for 7 years

Please help keep the platform clean.Kingston-Throop is my station too.

- Gene, Subway rider for 57 years

//Proposal

The inspiration for these posters came from interviews conducted with 17 passengers at the station. The interview format was a combination between IDEO’s extreme user interviews (posing the question of what 3 words they would use to describe the station) and Five Why’s (And why did you choose those words? And why do you think it’s dirty? And why don’t people care?...) The inter-views almost all ended in, “People don’t care, because MTA doesn’t care about us.” This series of posters, to be installed throughout the station and both on and off the platform, works with these affective parts of the sys-tem, creating new balancing feedback loops that encourage passengers to care, just like the people in the poster. In alerting passen-gers of their fellow riders, we can set up a system both of rule enforcement (people will feel more at fault and less likley to litter when they are aware of others), and of caring in general. When passengers reconnect with their feelings of caring about their station, just as they did in the interviews, they will shift their paradigms altogether and have a new perspective on their place in the system. This design embodies self-organization, where the passengers take it upon themselves to im-prove their surroundings. A poster campaign like this would also visible to MTA staff, and may raise their awareness of their place in the station’s system.




//Proposal (cont’d)

Similar to the indoor posters,this outdoor sign at the en-trance to the station alerts passengers they are entering a shared space. It also en-courages passengers to take ownership of the station, just as the people on the poster have.

Design for these posters should come from within the community, as should the photography, printing and installation.

In designing these posters I spoke with people on the subway platform and asked them if they thought change was more likley to come from the top or from the people who used the station every day. Most people said they would like to see people in their community have more respect for the space, before they went to the MTA. Many of them also explained that they actually have more faith in their fellow passengers, which encouraged me to continue along this path of creating a self-organizing, bottom-up design.

Kingston-Throop station entrance, NW corner of Throop Ave. and Ful-ton St. in Brooklyn.


Systems Analysis: Subway Station Redesign

Documents

Transcript of Systems Analysis: Subway Station Redesign