CTA Tattler

The second photo, the one with the tan seats, is a physical impossibility!
There isn't any place for the doors to open up!
Whoever drew it doesn't understand how the sliding doors work.
Also the stanchion in the middle of the aisle seems to violate the ADA law as a wheelchair couldn't pass by it.

I really don't know why there is such a focus on individual seats. Having just a flat bench might allow more people to sit down. Of course, it might cause there to be less seating if a bunch of obese people are already seated or if someone decides to lie down. The horizontal bars look like they could be a real noggin knocker. I like the longitudinal seating because I have long legs and it is uncomfortable for me to sit in most of the forward- and rearward-facing seats.

A lot of people on here seem to complain about the cloth inserts. I'm not really sure why it's so important to have them myself, though I don't have a problem with them as long as they are clean.

I'm also not so sure why the sliding doors are so necessary. Bifold doors would allow for more windows. I have also seen train cars that have sliding doors that slide outside the car, which may be another option.

Geez. Even in the first mockup they've got the ad placards begging for extra funding.

I don't care about the position of the seats, but I had really wished that they would adopt cars with staggered doorways (not directly across the aisle from each other) like in New York. This goes a long way in preventing the massive choke points of people in the doorways of the cars.

If we don't get funding, we're cutting jobs and routes. Wait, we got funding? Great! Pay a designer to mock up some new cars and we'll put the money towards that! ...

I agree with most of what eBob said, though if anyone were laying down I'd sit on their head. And have gas. Seriously, if someone is that rude they deserve it.

I agree about the sliding doors too. I like the bifold ones that you only find (or at least I only find) on Blue Line cars. I wonder if running the seats in that fashion really will open up more seating.

One thing I would definitely add is room for luggage of some sort. I don't mean for people with groceries, I mean everyone on the Orange and Blue Lines going to the airport. Especially during rush hour.

Ed - the money for this is not coming from the new funding...

From the Tribune article (and the press release):
"To make the $604 million purchase, the CTA will use mostly federal funds and a local funding match that was secured several years ago—long before recent state legislation to fund mass-transit operations. The state does not have a capital-spending program, jeopardizing future federal funds already earmarked for Illinois."

The folding doors can't be used due to ADA clearences. I bet the outside doors would be a nightmare in our climate; they'd be frozen in snow and ice storms, or just plain cold.

The cloth seats are nice becuase they a) deaden some sound and b) prevent you from sliding around like the old hard surface seats did.

NYC subway cars have vertical poles and it does not interfere with wheelchair access. The vertical poles combined w/train length horizontal bars & straps in their cars help so much when you're standing.

While these appear like individual seats - someone obnoxious could very well lay down across these as easy as a bench.

I don't agree w/the need for luggage racks. It would take up valuable people space and it would be just another spot to collect trash, be vandalized or who knows what else.

Chicago is going to be pissy about long seating like this. While I admit that IF USED PROPERLY, it makes more space for people sitting and standing, it won't be used properly. There will be people stretched full out sleeping on every rail car. Not to mention that obese people might be now taking up four seats instead of two. And what about those people with the backpacks and shopping bags?

I see it getting pretty ugly when they debut these cars.

What makes people think we're somehow different here in Chicago, too good for aisle-facing seating? WTF.

Tell you what. If you don't like the aisle seats, stand. Personally, I'll take any seat on my long-ass 3-track Brown Line ride out to Western. If you are too uncomfortable to sit next to someone on your way to Armitage or something, then stand. I'll take that seat. Problem solved.

Sigh. I love it. Josh thinks he's a badass because he lives ALL THE WAY out by Western. Sniffle. Must be rough pal.

To echo another poster, I think the seating would be fine if they did away with the idiotic individual buckets which are designed to accomodate people the size of Kate Moss.

Sorry, the sideways thing really makes for an unpleasant ride in so many ways. But that's not all--people please wake up: the CTA is trying to phase out seats as the norm for passengers on both trains and buses. Do you all really mean to tell me an uncomfortably configured seat or a standing ride all the way from outlying neighborhoods to downtown is acceptable and we should just learn to like it? Chicagoans think they're too good to be transported like livestock? I should hope so! You may call me a baby, but I hope Mr. Huberman knows what I am is a paying customer, and that this would be a very bad kind of "improvement".

That's funny. I actually need to sit, for medical reasons (no, I'm not listed as disabled.) I guess I need to stand and shut up about it, huh? And why do you assume that people don't have a long way to go? I ride almost the entire red line, which takes a really long time.

No buckets:

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2499529/2/istockphoto_2499529_nyc_subway_car.jpg

The first rendering is the only one that will happen. NYC trains are much wider, which allow the pole in the middle of the car. In the second rendering, there is no space under the seats, but in the first there is space...for bags and luggage. As someone who goes to the airport on a weekly basis, the area under the seats in the first rendering looks to be a great place to shove my bag for a wile...given its not completely filthy (but it will be).

No butt buckets, but how many people are supposed to sit between those arms? It's hard to tell.

I love the first rendering at least for the fact that it elminates an easy way for people to stand in the doorway (no good lean spot there). I hate when people do that, it's so rude.

"Too good for aisle facing seating? wtf?"

WTF does that mean anyway? How about too smart for aisle facing seating? Who give a damn about how they do things in NYC?

Seems to me that it's much more comfortable with our front and rear seating - no more than one person sitting next to you (or on top of you as sometimes happens anyway) not to mention having someones ass or armpit in your face, or their backback, purses, shopping bags, or other crap smacking you around.

I know more than a few people who experience motion sickness on the aisle facing seats - I know - you could care less.

Luggage racks, what for? Maybe on the blue or orange lines out to the airport, but even then who wants to be the first to have some joker drop his suitcase on your head?

For the few hours a day that the crowding on the trains might even remotely justify this, it seems like a downgrade to emulate NYC trains.

Works for NYC, I don't know why Chicago hasn't adopted it sooner.

ADA would require 36" of clearance around a vertical pole. A pole in the middle of the car could not have 36" on each side unless they also removed the seats next to the pole. That's why any vertical poles would need to be on the edges of the aisle.

Sliding doors could not be on the outsdie of the car like the sliding doors on buses because of the loading platforms. Even if you didn't have the prospect of snow, ice and frozen hardware, it wouldn't work. They have to slide into pockets.

A blinker or folding door could be made wide enough for ADA, but the way the doors move would cause safety issues for everyone.

I think the biggest advantage to the individual seats is that they discourage laying down. Of course this would be accomplished even more by having forward/backward facing seats. But movement in the train is more effient with the sideways seating.

If there were enough operating funds to run enough trains so that they wouldn't be crowded enough to make sideways seats a necessity, I'd be happy. But there's barely enough money to keep the trains running. Therefore we need the sideways facing seats.

Also... How can they come up with accurate cost estimates if they don't know the configuration? If they have a useful number, it has to be based on a particular seating style. If they don't have more than one number, then they've already made a choice whether they'll publicly admit to it or not.

So it sounds to me like the decision has already been made, and any further debate is just wasted time.

Is that Plexiglass on both sides of the doors?! I can't even imagine what would get scratch-written on those.

Although, it does looks like a great place to lean on to both block the doors, and we get new views of smooshed butts.

Seriously, I think the plexiglass has to go. (talking about View 1,the one CTA will likely use)

I'm amazed by the worst-case scenarios dreamed by people who can't deal with change.

Is there a configuration that will cause people to stop getting up and pushing their way towards the door 30 seconds before the train arrives at the stop? They act like they wont be able to get off in time or something. It's a big problem at stops like Fullerton where the train makes a semi-violent movement right before the station. RELAX folks, you'll be able to make it off without causing a huge headache for other riders. This has become my new #2 beef, still right behind the all-time #1 of people who try to board before everyone's gotten off. Ok, sorry for the off-topic rant.

"That's funny. I actually need to sit, for medical reasons (no, I'm not listed as disabled.) I guess I need to stand and shut up about it, huh? And why do you assume that people don't have a long way to go? I ride almost the entire red line, which takes a really long time."

Okay, then sit. Honestly, I don't know why this is such an issue. If you need to sit, you'll sit. If you hate the seats so much, you won't. For my money, I bet everyone complaining in this thread ends up sitting in these seats.

"Sigh. I love it. Josh thinks he's a badass because he lives ALL THE WAY out by Western. Sniffle. Must be rough pal."

I never said I'm a badass. If you happen to live at Kimball or Howard or something, you can have my seat. Hell, I don't get to sit until Addison anyway.

It's ironic that you "sniffle" at me for being tired of the whiners. All I'm saying is that currently, I stand almost all the way home. Since most of the commenters in this thread "omg hate" the new seating arrangement, I expect that there will be plenty of room for me to stretch out. No? Oh right, everyone will be sitting just like now.

"No? Oh right, everyone will be sitting just like now."

Except half of them will be sitting on the floor, and you'll trip over us. That's the breaks Josh!

We wouldn't have to "whine" if we could just take our business elsewhere...to some other CTA. Since that's not possible, it's important to let the one CTA we have know how customers prefer to be treated. If you don't think that should be part of the equation, I'd hate to be a customer of any business you are running. You would think it OK to give us orders just like you do the employees. and expect us to obey or get out. And what do you think we would do, given a choice, Mr. Soup Nazi?

"Except half of them will be sitting on the floor"
Why? You're not losing any seats. There will be the same number of seats as current cars (well, the 3200 cars anyway).

The fact of the matter is that the rails are running near capacity. Barring expansion of platforms to fit 10-car trains, there is no other way to let more people ride than to pack more people into trains.

From chicago-l.org:
"In the cars, 31 of the 39 seats face inward toward the aisle and 8 are left in a transverse arrangement, as opposed to a standard 3200-series car, which has 15 seats facing inward and 24 facing forward or backward. The idea is to create a wider aisle for more standing passengers during rush hours. According to the CTA®, the extra space created should allow for 10 more riders per car during busy times. Trains now can fit about 90 riders per car. It is also thought that the new seating arrangement makes more room for luggage, strollers, bikes, and other items. The new arrangement also creates a second wheelchair position in the chair, diagonally across from the existing position near the #1 end of the car."

So today, in the newest cars, 39 people can sit, and the rest is standing. With the new cars, 40 people can sit (that's one more), and 10 more people can stand. Those 10 people would sure help clear busy platforms when it's -10 degrees outside.

Also, as this quote from Chicago-L.org states, and is visible in the mockups above if you look:

"At the #2 end of both cars some of the transverse seating was left in place because its realignment wouldn't have provided any net gain in seating or standing space, as seen in this view inside car 3408 on May 19, 2004. Leaving some transverse seats also provides some choice for riders who prefer to face forward or backward."

So you'll have choice. For those of you who have motion sickness, I'm sure someone who doesn't would stand up and let you sit in the forward-back seats if you ask.

I apologize for coming off as a dick in previous posts, but there just seems to be a lot of Chicken Little going on here.

I like the new cart designs. It's about time to have more efficient spacing in the trains! FYI mass transit trains are designed the same way in high population density cities like NY, Tokyo and Hong Kong. Most people end up standing through the commute anyway. Time to put the word MASS back into mass transit! Now if only CTA would start working on adding the word Rapid.....

It's time for people to either ignore Josh, or he should be banned from the site. All he is is a troll, he never has anything constructive to say, and bashes other posters. Ignore him. He's boring.

I missed the pexiglass the first time around. I wish that wasn't in there. We don't need to give a way for people to lean in the doorway - I don't know why they put that there.

One thing that I'd like to see on the new cars (and retrofitted onto old ones) is an alarm on the emergency doors that allow people to pass from one car to another. Most of the time, people passing between train cars are up to no good.

Here's the President's report which show 2 door designs, 3 interior designs, and 2 new front end designs(headlights and color changes):
http://www.transitchicago.com/news/motion/board/0801presidentsreport.pdf

Here's my preferences:

Door Design: Scenario 2

Interior Design: Not Scheme 1, 1A, nor 2. Prefer the existing seating type and pole placement shown in the door design pictures. Interior colors based on Scheme 1A seem O.K.

Headlights and Color Change: #1(the one with the silver door/lavender windows)

I'm really hoping those interior design choices were leftover pictures from another transit agency and was being used for color schemes only. One can wish.

People - these are just renderings. They are not representative of what the final product would look like. Sheesh.

And I don't see what the issue is with side-seating. It's a more efficient use of space. I personally prefer it b/c I have more leg room and easier access to get off when I need to.

Much better than being on the inside of a forward/backward facing seat, smashed up against the window/wall by someone who is too large/inconsiderate/drunk and having to prepare 2 stops ahead to climb over them when I want to get out.

Mike,

Happy Friday!

>>"People - these are just renderings. They are not representative of what the final product would look like. Sheesh."<<

Rendering = A visual representation of what the finished product would look like.

What would be the point of a rendering that isn't representative of what the final product would look like?

My god, if the CTA announced that they'd found a way to drive the trains twice as fast with half as much fuel, I think some people on here would still find a way to complain. ("This is just going to cause more whiplash!")

Obviously expanding the passenger capacity of rail cars by >10% would be a good thing. And we'll need it if we're going to stave off future fare increases (or at least minimize them). Under the new transit funding bill, the CTA was given a partial exemption from the 50% farebox recovery rule, but that exemption is phased out over several years. This means that either the CTA will have to increase fares or increase ridership.

While some may disagree, I suspect the great majority of us would prefer to have higher ridership than higher fares.

More generally, though, it is good to hear that the CTA will finally be getting new rail cars. Replacing the hunks of metal rummaging along on our rails will be helpful in creating a more modern image for the CTA and attracting more riders to public transit.

I'd like to second the alarm on the doors between cars; I can't stand it when people use the space between them as their personal pissoir and then saunter in to the next car. Or just go through looking for a private seat, or worse...

I agree with the idea of having an alarm on the emergency doors. Opening one of these doors should also signal the motorman to stop the train to investigate the emergency. Steep fines for using those doors for non-emergency purposes should cut down on the mischief that these people cause. I, for one, have learned to be suspicious of anyone passing through those doors.

"You're not losing any seats. There will be the same number of seats as current cars (well, the 3200 cars anyway).

Josh--I'm trying to envision how this can be in a car of the current length. Where is there room for all the aisle seats to be squeezed in along the walls?

If the answer is that the cars are longer, what makes you think the CTA won't cut back of the number of cars per train? After all, they'll hold more bodies.

C C Writer, I guess I can't be sure regarding the new cars, but the CTA did test this seating arrangement a few years ago with the 3200-series cars, and that's where I'm getting my numbers from. You can check out what it looked like, etc, from the 3200-series car roster page at http://www.chicago-l.org/trains/roster/3200.html

>>Where is there room for all the aisle seats to be squeezed in along the walls?<<

Turn the window seat 90-degrees. It still takes up the same amount of room. Now twist the aisle seat, and slide it between the rotated window seats. Bingo.

Same amount of seating. Better circulation. No one trapped in a window seat.

'Turn the window seat 90-degrees. It still takes up the same amount of room. Now twist the aisle seat, and slide it between the rotated window seats. Bingo."

Let's both take a tape measure and see whether there's actually a full seat's worth of room between the window seats now (not counting the space the angled seat back takes up). I'm under the impression there is not, but maybe I'm wrong.

that's my impression as well, CC. I give you the better circulation, though; but I think there'll be more people standing & not just because there's more SRO.

You certainly have the right to have the opinion that any fact is untrue.

" In the cars, 31 of the 39 seats face inward toward the aisle and 8 are left in a transverse arrangement, as opposed to a standard 3200-series car, which has 15 seats facing inward and 24 facing forward or backward. " http://www.chicago-l.org/trains/gallery/3200s_LongSeatCar.html

As long as 24 + 15 = 39, it's a fact that there are the same number of seats either way in a converted 3200 car. But if you want to believe that 39 doesn't equal 39, you're welcome to have that illogical opinion. Believing unfounded preceptions over established facts is actually pretty standard behavior for humans.

As for whether more people will choose to remain standing if the seats are rotated, that's a valid opinion. My opinion is that more people will choose to sit. Think of all the window seats that go unused now because people don't want to climb over someone sitting in an aisle seat. And it'll be easier to squeeze the people taking-up an extra seat with their bags because it'll be easier for people to slide over, and sqeeze them out as the whole row fills up.

And many people who complain that riding sideways makes them sick will eventually decide to buck-it-up, and sit down because it's more comfortable than standing.

How humans will act is a matter of opinion. Whether there are the same number of seats is a matter of fact, despite anyone's opinions to the contrary.