Just a little over a year after the completion of the Avenue U train station rehabilitation, three out of the four brand new doors are already broken.

Tipster Richie took the above photo and let us know this morning that the third door broke this week, following the malfunction of two other doors.

The MTA is sssooooo slow. These doors to the Q train on Ave U station has been broken for quite some time now. At first one door broke, then another door broke. NOW three doors are broken. WTF. This has got to be a fire hazard.

The third door was definitely broken beginning of this week. The first two doors have been broken for at least a few weeks maybe a month.

Regardless, those damn doors are NEW!!! Such shitty products. They should have the wherewithall to install items that are meant for everyday abuse. So ridiculous.

Related posts

  • Barkingspider07

    I don’t understand why the city treats the outer boroughs like we’re trailer trash.  You would never see this in Manhattan.  With the raises that the MTA put into effect, this should not have been neglected.  Watch, the doors will eventually be removed, but not replaced. 

    • Georgia

      I like your comment with you 100%. The outer boroughs are more important because the mayor lives there (Manhattan) he has everything at his finger tips, trash cans his street is as clean as a whistle as they say.

      • Andrew

        Aside from the fact that the subway isn’t under mayoral control, that’s a pretty unusual to thing to say about an agency that just spent $219 million rebuilding seven Brighton line stations (not to mention the numerous other projects taking place elsewhere in Brooklyn, most prominently the West End stations and Culver viaduct).

        Yes, some doors broke.  I won’t speculate as to what was wrong with them.  Hopefully replacements will come soon.  But it’s pretty clear that Brooklyn isn’t being neglected.

        • BrooklynBus

          There is a difference between maintenance and investment in the system.  Both the Brighton Line stations and the Culver viaduct have reached the end of their useful lives.  They are just being rebuilt to keep the system functioning. 

          On the other hand look at all the current investment in Manhattan to expand the system: the Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access, the #7 expansion, the Fulton Street Transit Center, the Bleecker Street transfer.  What did Brooklyn get? a Jay Street transfer that was only 100 foot long that should have been built 50 years ago and took like 5 years to build. When it opened everyone was surprised how close the stations really were.  If everyone knew it was so close, there would have been more political pressure for it to be done earlier. And we are still waiting for a transfer at Junius Street between the L and the 3.  

          • Andrew

            Incredible.  I responded to a claim that “the city [sic] treats the outer boroughs like we’re trailer trash” by pointing out that the MTA has actually been spending a lot of money on Brooklyn lately and on the Brighton line in particular.  I’m sorry if you don’t like the sort of investment that took place here, but, in case you weren’t aware, deferred maintenance took its toll on the entire subway system, in all of its boroughs, and the MTA has been very gradually bringing the system back to a state of good repair.  Some aspects, such as the track, have already been completed; others, like stations and signals, still have a ways to go.  If anything, I’d guess that Brooklyn is probably a bit ahead of the curve.

            The only true system expansion is taking place in one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the U.S., whose only current subway line has been chronically overcrowded for decades.  I see nothing wrong with that.  And, incidentally, since Upper East Siders mix with Bronx residents on the 4, 5, and 6 trains, those Bronx residents will also benefit from less crowded trains after SAS opens.

            Your other examples?

            East Side Access

            For Long Islanders, not Manhattanites.

            the #7 expansion

            Which will directly serve Queens, with connections to most other subway lines to serve the other boroughs.  (Not many Manhattan residents ride the 7.)

            the Fulton Street Transit Center

            i.e., the transfer point between the A/C from Brooklyn and the 4/5 to East Midtown.  Brooklyn residents probably make up the bulk of the station’s users.  (Not many Manhattan residents live nearby.)

            the Bleecker Street transfer

            Of primary interest to Brighton, West End, Culver, and Myrtle Avenue/Broadway-Brooklyn riders who work in East Midtown.  Again, not very useful to Manhattan residents, except on the Lower East Side.

            What did Brooklyn get? a Jay Street transfer that was only 100 foot long that should have been built 50 years ago and took like 5 years to build. When it opened everyone was surprised how close the stations really were.

            Speak for yourself.  Anybody who’s been on the street around there knows how close they were.

            If everyone knew it was so close, there would have been more political pressure for it to be done earlier.

            Bleecker Street is even closer, and it’s plainly obvious from the subway map that there’s a serious deficiency there.  If there’s any connection that should have been built 50 years ago, it’s that one.

            And we are still waiting for a transfer at Junius Street between the L and the 3.

            Keep waiting.  The market for that transfer is tiny, and the cost to enclose the footbridge over the freight tracks (while still keeping it available to people who aren’t riding the subway) and to maintain security would be tremendous.

          • BrooklynBus

            You are the one who is incredible. As I stated, there is a difference between replacing what has reached its useful life and system expansion which you refuse to recognize. Where are the Utica and Nostrand Avenue Lines we were promised for the past 90 years? The only major system expansion we are getting for the forseeable future is the 2nd Avenue Subway.  I’m not saying it is not needed, just that it is for Manhattan. Forget about a tunnel to Brooklyn, that will never be built. They will first build one to Secaucus before Brooklyn. And East Side Access is for Long Islanders as you point out, not for City residents. And now you are trying to make the ridiculous case that the 7 extension is primarily to serve Queens residents. Most of the riders exiting at the terminal stop on 11th Avenues will begin their trips in places other than Queens. With the Javits  Center being replaced by housing, it will be used mainly by Manhattan Residents.

            You always ask me for numbers.  Where are yours to show the demand for a Junious Street transfer would be minimal or the costs to build one tremendous?

          • Andrew

            Again, I was responding to two comments about broken doors.  I was addressing a maintenance issue, not a system expansion issue.  You jumped in and changed the subject to expansion.

            There has been virtually no system expansion anywhere in the system since the 40′s.  It’s not just Brooklyn.  Nobody was “promised” any lines – the two overly ambitious plans, the IND Second System and the MTA Plan for Action, that included (among much else) new lines into southern Brooklyn, went basically nowhere.  (In the 70′s, when the impacts of the earlier deferred maintenance policy quickly became apparent, there were far greater priorities than system expansion.  There’s no point in expanding a system that’s about to collapse.)

            The Second Avenue Subway, especially the segment currently under construction, is by far the most sorely needed expansion in the city.  Yes, even though it’s in Manhattan.

            Forget about a tunnel to Brooklyn, that will never be built.

            “Never” is a long time.

            They will first build one to Secaucus before Brooklyn.

            There’s only one person pushing a tunnel to Secaucus, and he’s out of office in two years.  I doubt that will go anywhere any time soon.

            And East Side Access is for Long Islanders as you point out, not for City residents.

            So?  I see you hold Long Islanders in as much contempt as Manhattanites.  I don’t think ESA was a smart expenditure of funds, but why should I denigrate people because of where they choose to live?

            And now you are trying to make the ridiculous case that the 7 extension is primarily to serve Queens residents.

            The 7 extension is to a future business district.  It will serve anyone who works there, which will include residents of all five boroughs (and even Long Island).  But it will directly serve residents of Queens.

            With the Javits  Center being replaced by housing, it will be used mainly by Manhattan Residents.

            So the MTA should have anticipated, before embarking on this project in 2007 or 2008, that a future governor would announce plans in 2012 to add housing in the area?  And if it’s worthwhile to extend the line to serve a business district, isn’t it even more worthwhile to extend it to serve a mixed business/residential district?  Or do Manhattan residents count negative in your book?

            I doubt that anything the governor announced last week will come to fruition, but even if it does, the Hudson Yards development will be a major employment destination.

            I don’t have any numbers on Junius, and neither do you.  Why don’t you write a polite letter to the MTA and ask if they have model outputs that they’d be willing to share?

            By the way, do you acknowledge any of the subway service improvements over the past few decades in Brooklyn?  Extended hours on the Brighton express, midday 5 service to Flatbush (with less frequent service in Manhattan and the Bronx, since the change had to be cost-neutral), the major service increase when the Manhattan Bridge fully reopened in 2004, expansion of A express service in the late 80′s and again in the late 90′s.  That’s pretty generous compared to what the other boroughs have gotten.  The only big loss was the loss of the Bay Pkwy. M, but that was more than outweighed by the direct Midtown service that’s now available in northern Brooklyn.

          • BrooklynBus

            I will answer here to your comment below.  You do make a few good points but some are erroneous. Yes there has been virtually no system expansion outside of Manhattan other than the 63rd connection.  Archer Avenue was a replacement for part of the Jamiaca El. 

            We had two transportation bond issues in the 70s in which a whole host of new lines were promised. The MTA reneged on those promises and used the money instead for necessary maintenance because other funding was not forthcoming. Nevertheless, the promises which you state were never made were broken.  Using the bond issue for that purpose instead of new linew that would have brought in new revenue is what got us in our financial mess today. 

            The Brooklyn Borough President has been asking for a Junius Street transfer for ten years.  I once saw the numbers and they were higher than you think and that was before unlimited passes so everyone who used that transfer paid double fare.  The MTA just said that the money wasn’t there, not that usage was too light or it would be cost prohibitive.

            Also, where do you get the idea that the service improvements you mention for Brooklyn (A, 5) resulted in less service in Manhattan and the Bronx? How was service reduced there?  I’ve only seen the cost neutral scenario only applied to buses, not subways, except for last year’s cuts.  You mention the loss of the M on Bay Parkway, but neglect to mention the loss of the Nassau connection to Brooklyn also affected all 4th Avenue, Sea Beach and Brighton riders as well causing many to use an inconvenient IRT transfer instead of an across the platform transfer at Dekalb or Pacific.  When considering everyone who was inconvenienced, I believe that the service improvement for Northern Brooklyn was no more than a wash, not a real improvement.

          • Andrew

            Yes there has been virtually no system expansion outside of Manhattan other than the 63rd connection.  

            There have been virtually no system expansion anywhere in the city, in or out of Manhattan.

            We had two transportation bond issues in the 70s in which a whole host of new lines were promised. The MTA reneged on those promises and used the money instead for necessary maintenance because other funding was not forthcoming.

            The money was used to pay for major repairs which were the result of decades of deferred maintenance – a process which has still not been completed.  Do you see much of a point in building lots of new lines while the old lines rot away?

            I don’t consider a transportation bond issue to be a “promise,” but I suppose that could be argued either way.  In any case, there’s nothing special about Brooklyn – “promises” are broken in all five boroughs.

            Using the bond issue for that purpose instead of new linew that would have brought in new revenue is what got us in our financial mess today.  

            Balderdash!  Using the bond issue for that purpose would have led to a collapse of the entire system.  (And even if that weren’t the case, the new revenue from a new line virtually never covers its own operating expenses!)

            The Brooklyn Borough President has been asking for a Junius Street transfer for ten years.  

            Marty Markowitz is an out-of-touch buffoon.  His asking for something doesn’t mean that it’s worth doing.  He hasn’t done a ridership analysis and he hasn’t offered to pay for it, so the most he can reasonably ask for the MTA to consider it.

            I once saw the numbers and they were higher than you think and that was before unlimited passes so everyone who used that transfer paid double fare.  

            If you saw the numbers before unlimited passes, they’re out of date.  And how do you know what I think?

            The MTA just said that the money wasn’t there, not that usage was too light or it would be cost prohibitive.

            “The money wasn’t there” because there were more important uses of scarce capital dollars.

            Also, where do you get the idea that the service improvements you mention for Brooklyn (A, 5) resulted in less service in Manhattan and the Bronx? How was service reduced there?  I’ve only seen the cost neutral scenario only applied to buses, not subways, except for last year’s cuts.  

            I only said that the 5 improvement in Brooklyn resulted in less Manhattan/Bronx service.  When the 5 was extended, the 4 was cut from a 5 minute headway to an 8 minute headway.  I can’t find the reference now to cost-neutrality (it was probably in one of the news articles at the time), but headways on the 4 have been increased.  Compare the schedules before and after.

            You mention the loss of the M on Bay Parkway, but neglect to mention the loss of the Nassau connection to Brooklyn also affected all 4th Avenue, Sea Beach and Brighton riders as well causing many to use an inconvenient IRT transfer instead of an across the platform transfer at Dekalb or Pacific.  When considering everyone who was inconvenienced, I believe that the service improvement for Northern Brooklyn was no more than a wash, not a real improvement.

            I mention the “loss of the Bay Pkwy. M,” which includes former riders of all portions of the old route.  Most of them now take the R, which runs on the same tracks that the M used between 36th and Court.  Some find it worthwhile to make the longer transfer to the IRT.  For those who have trouble with stairs, Atlantic-Pacific is fully ADA accessible.

            When the M ran downtown from Essex, every single M rider from North Brooklyn who needed Midtown service had to make an inconvenient transfer at Essex, Canal, Chambers, or Fulton, none of which is ADA accessible.  Now they have direct service, and J riders have a cross-platform transfer to Midtown service.  I know that’s not your part of Brooklyn, but it’s still Brooklyn, and it’s a part of Brooklyn where ridership has been booming.

            The fact is that the old M was very lightly used (there were often seats available at the peak load point at the height of the rush hour).  It was a nice service, but the Montague tube had more service than was warranted, especially during a budget crisis.  The new M is much more crowded.

            And in case you’ve forgotten, the goal wasn’t even to improve service – it was to reduce operating expenses!

    • NSF

      So true because most tourists only remain in Manhattan so the mayor makes sure it gets the best while the outer boroughs get overlooked.

  • Georgia

    Ha Ha welcome to Ave U we had this on Neck Road & the doors took about almost 2 moniths to fix. People just don’t care they could run throught the glass doors just to catch the train and leave damages behind.

  • NSF

    Negligent commuters or crappy workmanship–or both?

    • Justachln

      I think it’s crappy workmanship and poor quality doors.

  • BrooklynBus

    What about all the floor tile that is cracked and falling apart at the stations that were renovated within the past ten years. They must have tested a dozen different tiles before deciding on te final product an they still do not last. They also do not buy spares so the replacement tiles are never the exact same color. In some places they just patch with concrete.

    • Anonymous

      I still cant figure out the tiled stations. They have wasted millions,covering up durable plain concrete,to make it look nicer. Who really cares how the platform floors look? Just keep them clean.

      • BrooklynBus

        The thing is you couldn’t keep them clean without frequent steam washing.  They always looked dark dirty and covered with gum spots.  The tile looked much better if it would have lasted.  The new wall tiles are also chipping and falling apart on many of the new stations, some of it from water damage.   Some of these stations took 20 years to plan and get funding for and after 20 years they are already starting to look neglected.

  • Anonymous

    The old station lasted almost 100 years with no major renovation.With plain wooden doors that I never remember breaking. Says something about the people in charge today.

  • Allan Rosen

    Answers to Andrew’s comments above:

    Maybe the 2nd Avenue Subway and East Side Access are not open yet, but tell me that the only system expansion the MTA is engaging in is not in Manhattan?
     
    You don’t see the two bond issues that were passed as being a promises, but the voters at the time sure did. The ads said vote for the bond issue and these lines will be built.
     
    I’m not a fan of Markowitz either but he was responding to his constituents by suggesting the Junius transfer because they saw a need.  And yes the numbers I saw before unlimited passes would be out of date.  Without an extra fare disincentive, the numbers are surely higher today.
     
    If headways on the 4 were cut, they also had to have been cut on the 5, and coincidentally making the trains more crowded didn’t violate any service guidelines, right?
     
    Atlantic Avenue may be ADA accessible, but it still is much more inconvenient than an across the platform transfer at Dekalb which many are now avoiding because of the extra wait for the R.  The J should have been extended to 9th Avenue.  I agree that service to Bay Parkway may not have been necessary.

    • Andrew

      I have no idea what system expansion you’re talking about.  There has been virtually none since the 40′s, and what little there has been has all been for the primary benefit of Queens and Brooklyn.  Second Avenue is the first major expansion in Manhattan since the IND, and it is by far the most warranted subway expansion in the U.S.  Arguing against it because it isn’t in Brooklyn makes you look petty.

      If you believe everything you read in ads, you are incredibly gullible.  I don’t recall the precise language of the ads, but they probably stated the intent behind the bond issue.  Whether bonds issued with the intent to be used for project X can be diverted to project Y is a simple question of state law.  But I don’t even understand your objection – do you really think extensions were the best way to spend that money as the existing system was rapidly falling apart?I wouldn’t be surprised if the midday 4 and 5 are now in violation of loading guidelines in Manhattan.The M had a v/c ratio of 42% before the cuts, lower than any other line.  There’s nothing wrong with eliminating such a service when the primary alternates, the D (for West End riders) and the R (for 4th Ave/Montague riders) are at 67% and 48%, respectively.  The D and R are now at 78% and 69%, respectively – still well within guidelines.  (And loads on the R also increased due to the new Jay Street transfer.)There is no need to extend the J.  The south end of the M was eliminated due to very low ridership, and the J would have similarly low ridership.  There are a number of alternate routes that serve Lower Manhattan quite well, including one that runs on the same tracks that the M ran on.  Extending the J would cost millions of dollars annually – can you come up with millions of dollars of offsetting cuts that you think would have been preferable?

      • BrooklynBus

        I’m talking about East Side Access and 2nd Avenue when I refer to system expansion which is Manhattan. There has been virtually none in the other boroughs except a little in the late 40s. Archer Avenue was a replacement for a part of the Jamaica El. Then we have the Culver connection canceled out by the elimination of the Culver Shuttle and a 1200 foot connection in Queens. You will now argue how expansion in Manhattan benefits Brooklyn and Queens. Go ahead. I was never implying that 2nd Avenue should not have had a high priority, just was stating facts about expansion. East Side Access is another story. It’s scope keeps expanding and is out of control.

        I’m not going to argue the bond issue anymore. It doesn’t matter what finagling lawmakers did to lie to the public three times, in the 50′s and the 70s, but that’s what they did. Whether it made sense to expand the system while it’s falling apart is another question. The politicians made it an either or by limiting funding. They could have continued the expansion and rebuilt the system too. That really wasn’t the MTAs fault.

        I didn’t say people with unlimited benefit from a free transfer. I said they benefit where an extra fare is charged to everyone else, since they don’t have to pay the extra fare.

        • BrooklynBus

          I was proposing the J be extended only during rush hours, maybe only three or four trains a day. I know there is no demand during midday. I should have made that clear.

          • Andrew

            The M only ran to Bay Pkwy. during rush hours in the first place.  Off-peak service was eliminated in 1995, then reinstated from 2001 to 2004 in response to Chinatown community pressure (and it was a ghost town).

            The rush hour M extension to Bay Pkwy. was eliminated in 2010 because of extremely low ridership and the availability of alternatives.  There is no possible justification for an extension of the J.  The R serves Lower Manhattan quite adequately and is never more than a few blocks from the J, so you don’t need to whine about climbing stairs or riding elevators at Atlantic.

            By the way, why would you call for a reinstatement of Nassau service where it overlaps the R, which has a 69% v/c ratio, but not where it overlaps the D, which has a 78% v/c ratio?  It seems to me that, although demand for the M was very weak, it was stronger on the West End than on 4th Ave.  Why do I get the sense that your planning criterion is “Do what’s best for Allan Rosen” rather than “Do what’s best for the transit ridership as a whole”?

        • Andrew

          I’m talking about East Side Access and 2nd Avenue when I refer to system expansion which is Manhattan. There has been virtually none in the other boroughs except a little in the late 40s. Archer Avenue was a replacement for a part of the Jamaica El. Then we have the Culver connection canceled out by the elimination of the Culver Shuttle and a 1200 foot connection in Queens.

          And SAS is “canceled out” by the elimination of the Second Avenue el.  What’s your point?

          There has been virtually no expansion in any borough.

          You will now argue how expansion in Manhattan benefits Brooklyn and Queens.

          Who do you think benefited from Chrystie Street and 63rd Street?

          Go ahead. I was never implying that 2nd Avenue should not have had a high priority, just was stating facts about expansion.

          No, you’ve been claiming that the MTA has been ignoring Brooklyn in order to serve Manhattan.  That’s plainly nonsense.

          East Side Access is another story. It’s scope keeps expanding and is out of control.

          I’ve never been a fan of ESA, but how has its scope expanded?

          I’m not going to argue the bond issue anymore. It doesn’t matter what finagling lawmakers did to lie to the public three times, in the 50′s and the 70s, but that’s what they did. Whether it made sense to expand the system while it’s falling apart is another question. The politicians made it an either or by limiting funding. They could have continued the expansion and rebuilt the system too. That really wasn’t the MTAs fault.

          Fantasy planning is a lot of fun, but in the real world, funding isn’t unlimited.

          I didn’t say people with unlimited benefit from a free transfer. I said they benefit where an extra fare is charged to everyone else, since they don’t have to pay the extra fare.

          What?

          A free transfer is less valuable in a world with unlimiteds than in a world without unlimiteds, since in a world with unlimiteds, some riders can make the transfer for free without having to pay a second fare.

          So whatever the case was for a Junius-Livonia transfer (or any other proposed transfer) in 1996, it’s weaker now, unless demand for the transfer has grown substantially.

  • Pingback: Ave U Station Mural Named One Of Top Public Artworks | Sheepshead Bay News Blog