CTA Tattler

I was really surprised (but then again, should I be?) at the tremendously negative comments on the Tribune message board when they posted this story. I think it's a good idea, and at the very least, they're making an attempt to increase capacity. CTA can't add more cars to trains, and probably can't add more trains, so trying to cram in more passengers in cars (and only some cars) seems like a logical solution. Seems like once again, any ideas immediately get hammered before they are implemented. I'm looking forward to seeing how this works out.

I find that the comments section on these newspaper websites are, for the most part, the most unproductive waste ever.

Half the people don't even appear to have read the article and are freaking out about that they or handicapped or old people don't want to stand that long on the train...good for you, then go to a car that has seats. It's as if they missed the part that it would only be 1-2 cars during rush time, so it's either bitch because the 3 trains that come into the station are packed and you can't get on, or you bitch because although you can now get on the train, you can't sit in a seat that was already occupied 5 stops before you got on.

Of course, the people that complain are also the ones that don't come up with any alternative solutions themselves.

As an aside, the Tribune article I read last night didn't do a good job mentioning that the CTA would install more poles and handlebars on the seatless cars so the additional people would have something to hang on to.

I suggested this way back when 3-track first started as a way to make up for the lost capacity. Glad to hear it is going to be reality, I think it makes perfect sense.

I also saw the comments on the Tribune's story, and couldn't believe all the negativity. I think many of them aren't actually Brown line or CTA riders, and just like to complain about it, because they think it is a drain on government resources.

I was really surprised how many people thought it would become pick-pocket central. I think pick-pocketing is pretty rare in this country these days, but even if it weren't, the trains are already packed to the gills, this just gives room to pack more people in.

I didn't like the negative tone that either of the articles took towards the new idea. And the quotes from people were ridiculous, such as "Add more cars to the train" and "I can't set my laptop down if I'm standing". I don't think I have to explain why these are dumb reasons not to implement a good idea. Plus, it's only during rush hour. I think if most people are given a choice of standing and getting home or waiting another 15 minutes for an unpacked train, they'll take the former over the latter every time.

I don't mind these cars for the people who want to stand, or have no choice because they get on for shorter trips near the end of the run. But I won't ride standing on the train, period, and I'm suspicious that the CTA is going to make this into a slippery slope leading to some future point where everyone standing all the time is the norm and there are few seats. This is so unacceptable for those of us making longer trips that it shouldn't even be necessary to warn against, but I still worry that the CTA's notion of customer-friendliness is not very well tied to reality--and you have to admit we regularly see evidence supporting that worry. So I'll believe this works when I actually see it.

Sounds good, but how about inward facing seats with small partitions between each one to keep people from lying down, like on the London Underground?

Or for Americans, partitions every two seats.

I board near the origination point for the Brown line so I always get a seat. These cars might be attractive to those at Armitage and Sheffield who have a relatively short commute and who are often faced with very crowded cars (they are also a young bunch).

I do want to comment on the placement of the two cars. I would argue against making them the first two or last two cars because a person boarding at Kimball or Sacramento (the auxillary entrance to the Francisco stop) would have to walk at least 2+ car lengths to reach a car with seats. This seems foolish when there are empty seats in every car that early in the trip.

I do think that an unintended consequence of the "no seat" cars will be unauthorized movement between cars using the emergency doors. These transfers can result in injuries and death and just a few lawsuits might make this seem like a less desirable approach to overcrowding.

Paul, I've seen pickpockets operating on platforms and in train cars. If I hadn't once shoved my way past a guy who was trying to squeeze ahead of me one crowded morning at Belmont, my wallet would've been stolen instead of his. (There's some karma for you.) I haven't regularly ridden the Red Line during commutes since the construction started at Grand, but the customer service associates at Belmont regularly used to broadcast warnings over the PA that known pickpockets were on the platform. (And then all the stupid people would check their pockets, letting said pickpockets know who the easy marks were and where to go for their wallets.)

The worst part is the morons whose wallets are stolen but who are too embarrassed to do anything other than cancel their credit cards. Once, five or six people, myself included, kept telling one victim that we could identify the pickpocket with no trouble, and if he'd just get off at Fullerton and talk to a CSA we'd help identify the guy. But he refused. It's true that he probably wouldn't have gotten the wallet back -- the pickpockets usually pass the wallets along to a friend so they aren't caught with stolen goods -- but the CTA can't do much of anything beyond those PA broadcasts until there's a victim and a witness, so it pisses me off when victims decide it's OK if it happens to other people too.

yay, long overdue.

Isn't the bigger problem the reduction in the number of trains due to three-tracking? Seems like a knee-jerk reaction based on a relatively small data set.

Isn't the bigger problem the reduction in the number of trains due to three-tracking? Seems like a knee-jerk reaction based on a relatively small data set.

I, too, thought the Trib article had a negative/biased tone toward the idea -- the writing sounded unjournalistic (if that's a word) at points and did not include any positive comments from riders to balance the negativity and show that some people think it's a good idea under the circumstances.

I'm a little suspicious about this one. With 3-tracking due to end in December, the CTA could simply tell its riders to tough it out for a few more months and wait until construction is over to add more trains. Are the CTA using the SRO cars as a reason not to restore the service that The Brown, Purple, and Red had before 3-track? I just have this strange feeling that one day the CTA is going to start running all seatless 8-car trains to keep from paying for more rail cars. CTA, if you're going to go through with this, please promise not to tell the airlines about it. SRO rail cars might inspire American Airlines to introduce the SRO airplane so that they can cram 1000 passengers into a Boeing 737.

I could go for this idea if the cars have drop-down seats like you find on the Paris metro near the doors and at the ends of newer subway cars in New York. But if the idea is to have no seats, I would oppose it.

When we all met with Ron Huberman in the spring, I know I was the only one not to keen on "Chicago Seatless" railcars. I know they would helo crowding in the peak of the peak. But our real peaks are only an hour long in Chicago, and these cars will remain coupled duringat least a few adjacent non-peak hours. At those hours, no one in this town is going to be thrilled to step onto an uncrowded train car only to find that they can't sit down.

As far as Huberman's statement that riders can choose cars with seats--when? When a platform is packed during rush hour and there's no easy way to jog down the platform to find a non-seatless car? Won't that just lead to rush-hour delays as people migrate along the platform and hol doors?

And how many passengers will walk between cars while the train is moving--a dangerous habit--to find a car with seats?

This has to be thought out in lots more detail before it's a workable idea.

There could be secondary benefits to the seatless cars running over the typical "peak" time, such as for carrying large pieces of luggage to either airport. I know this is only beginning on the Brown line, but in the future, it could expand to the Orange or Blue line. Additionally, someone mentioned that "peak" rush hour only lasts an hour...I want to point out that I don't believe that is necessarily true. On the red and brown lines (that I ride daily), the evening peak can reach well into late evening (say 7 or 8?)....or even later, especially in the summertime. Knowing this, it doesn't seem so bad that the seatless car remain coupled into the trains running after 6.

There is absolutely no way that Chicago's peak rush hour is only 1 hour long.

"Or for Americans, partitions every two seats."

Oh no, please make them small. Increasing the seat size in this country only encourages obesity ("oh, I still fit in the seat, I'm not THAT large.")

Yeah, the tribune commenters must be some of the dumbest people on the planet - for every story, they write their idiocy for all to see in force.

I like this idea, but I'd never ride in it if everyone is all packed together - too claustraphobic in regular train cars as it is.

Maureen, if you get on at the origination point, is it too much to ask you to board towards the middle so you can have your seat, while the riders further down the line can go into the SRO cars without having to wait for the next train car?

And to echo some other comments, I only read the Tribune column, but no wonder it incited all the negative comments it did. The writer clearly wanted everyone to know this was a horrible burder for CTA riders. I particularly enjoy how they compare this to Tokyo, (if only our transit could be compared to Tokyo's), but then immediately jump to 'third world' countries systems.

Why would making two cars of a train during rush hour warrant any comparisons to riding on the roof of cars in India? I mean I could see anonymous commenters giving voice to their mental deficiencies. But a journalist, with their name on the byline?

Pretty pathetic article.

Do people really think, "Huh. Now that seats are wider, I think I'll put on a few more pounds"?

There are plenty of factors that encourage obesity, but I'm just not sure that's one of them.

And I'm also surprised by the idea that rush hour's just 60 minutes or so. If the CTA wants to consider 4 p.m. the beginning of the rush hour, sure, maybe, I guess that's a shift change time, at least theoretically; but even 6 p.m. is just too early to consider rush hour ended on the Brown and Red at the very least, and likely the Blue too from my occasional experiences.

"Do people really think, "Huh. Now that seats are wider, I think I'll put on a few more pounds"?

There are plenty of factors that encourage obesity, but I'm just not sure that's one of them."

First of all, that's not what I said. I said that an obese person not being able to fit into a seat just might decide to do something about it. If the seats accomodate someone who is obese, that doesn't add any incentive to change.

Secondly, why wouldn't it be a factor? If we make everything comfortable for the super-obese, change everything about transportation and seating in restaurants, etc. to be more accomodating, why wouldn't it increase the normalization of being obese? I just read an article the other day talking about how fewer people consider themselves obese these days because more people ARE obese - it's more commonplace and therefore more acceptable. I don't think widening the seats is a good idea at all. Standard sizes should remain. I'm not saying it's the leading factor, but it can't help but be part of it.

When I read this I thought of the Bangkok Sky Train that I used frequently last summer. BKK has a LOT more traffic than Chicago does (probably because they don't have nearly as much public transit options as we do) but I liked how their train was set up. They had all of the seats against the wall instead of in the aisles like we do, and they had security in each part of the train. (we need more of that, please!) It just seemed to work. I had to stand often but there was plenty of room and handle bars. I think instead of just having all-standing cars, putting a row of seats against the wall and then having more space for people to stand would be better because then you're not limiting the elderly/handicapped/expecting mothers.
This is the website for the skytrain-
http://www.bts.co.th/index_saveplanet.htm

I can't find any pictures of the inside but the opening music is pretty sweet :)

What the heck is an "origination point"??? Do you mean the TERMINAL of the Brown Line at Kimball? I can hear it now.... "This is a Brown Line Train to the Origination Point" Hahaha.

Nice Freudian slip: "stranding room-only." I thought that only happened on the Blue Line. But seriously, folks, back to the issue at hand. I haven't taken the Brown Line at rush hour recently and I can't even imagine what it's like. Off-peak is bad enough. I was on a northbound Brown last night around 8pm. I boarded the last car of a 6-car train at Adams and there were no seats. Lots of people were leaving the concert at Millennium Park and there wasn't even standing space after Clark/Lake. Passengers at Merchandise Mart, Chicago, Sedgewick and Armitage couldn't even board. The trains appeared to be running fairly on schedule (whatever that means these days) because one pulled out just as I got to the platform and it wasn't more than 7 or 8 minutes until the one I boarded arrived. I think a lot more people are taking transit because of gas prices and traffic. SRO cars are a good experiment. CTA can always put the seats back in. At least CTA isn't buying back old rail cars they sold for scrap like its allegedly more glamorous sister, Metra.

I'll have to admit that my first thought was that the pickpockets will have a field day. That was also my second thought.

I wonder if Ron will reimburse us for the lost moeny etc, I'm all for it, otherwise I'll pick a seated car.

What's next? Stacking us like cordwood like they do in those japanese hotels?

KevinB

Thanks to our IDIOT governor, we might end up with a major threat of service cuts and fare hikes again this fall. The governor adds FREE rides for seniors in January and now has cut the funding for the program completely in vetoes to reduce the state budget! There is NO WAY I'm voting for this moron again and if anyone else does, you are a fool! The CTA will be short about $35 million from this action for 2008 alone. Probably double that figure for 2009. I think this shortage number is close to the amount the first doomsday happened a few years ago! What the heck is wrong with this state funding transportation? Gas prices are very high and there is no time better to invest in transit. I wish there had been a way if the governor added all these free rides he COULD NOT turn around and remove the funding. Also, another free rides program for disabled is on his desk waiting signature. That will just add at least several more million to the deficit. Just when you thought it was over folks, here we go again with another doomsday.

Hey KevinB, chill out. If you don't want to use the car, go to one of the 6 other cars. About 65% of Tattler readers say they like the idea, so you are in the minority here.

Excuse me for not using the train lingo "terminal" which is the end whereas I was thinking of being at the start or origination of the route.

No one boarding at Kimball will tolerate a car with no seats so the new configuration will mean that all of those passengers will have a longer walk down the platform than they have now to board the train (if the last 2 cars have no seats).

Now another interesting twist is that upon return, the last 2 cars of the previous run become the first 2 cars on the next car, right? So will the first two or the last two cars be "no seats" and it will be unpredictable. No seats in the first and last cars? This would be particularly galling for those departing at Rockwell, Francisco and Kedzie and Kimball as they prefer the first and last cars as they are closest to the exits. Anyone riding that far on the train is going to board an overcrowded car with seats rather than a cattle car because one can generally get a seat eventually if riding that far.

Currently there are how many seats on a train? Maybe 42? Eight cars of 42 seats mean that, theoretically there are 336 seated riders before anyone must stand. With 2 cars without seats we now have a situation where only 252 can sit before the train becomes "standing room only". Is that a good thing?

It seems that the people here are drinking Ron's Koolaid.

Maureen, I agree with that last sentence. I think Huberman has been getting a free pass for awhile now. That was fine when he was in his first months on the job, and he has had some great ideas. But this isn't one of them and he's been there long enough now to know better.

When I picked up the Sun-Times this morning, I thought I was looking at the Onion instead. What is this Huberman smoking? Pickpockets Are Welcome.

[ But this isn't one of them and he's been there long enough now to know better.]

Well, fine, but the question is how to increase capacity. I'm not reading any other suggestions here at all, much less better ones than this.

I say, why not give it a trial run and see what happens? If people go for it, keep it. If it causes problems and people hate it, no problem, just put the seats back in.

Either way, I think the future is going to be less seating, and more standing room. If people don't like this, well, I don't see how to avoid that. There's just no way around it, long term. They can't make the train cars bigger and 8-car trains is likely the max for the forseeable future.

[I'll have to admit that my first thought was that the pickpockets will have a field day. That was also my second thought.]

Reading comments like this make me wonder how you ever manage living in a big city. Jeez.

We haven't had 8 car trains AND four track service on the Brown Line. Let's see if the combination makes it possible to forego whatever small incrase in capacity will be gained by removing the seating for over 80 people.

And by the way, these cars with no seats... how are we going to get people to move in and keep from blocking the doors?

"Well, fine, but the question is how to increase capacity. I'm not reading any other suggestions here at all, much less better ones than this."

It seems to me we're all overreacting to the recent sudden increase in ridership caused – mostly, I think – by the increase in gas prices. This is complicated by the CTA's never-ending repair work. Remember that rush-hour capacity on the Brown and Red lines has been cut because of three-track work along the Belmont to Fullerton corridor. Once that work is complete, service *should* return to pre-three-track levels.

Additionally, once all the slow zone work is finished, doesn't it make sense that the CTA can simply run more trains when needed? Why can't we run trains every two or three minutes during peak periods? I've personally seen it done in places like London , Paris, and Rome. (Well, maybe not so much Rome, since Italians never really get in a hurry...they don't seem to mind standing around doing nothing.)

Or maybe I'm just being optimistic...

Ahh, but will the slow zone track work ever be completed?

I'm betting that even after the 3 track work is gone there will be more slow zone work between belmont and lake even after all the work is supposed to be done...but then that's the pessimist in me.

Also, 65% of tattler readers want the SRO cars? Is that a scientific poll? Looks like about 65% don't like the idea in the Trib...so go figure...

KevinB

Are you people REALLY using the argument of pickpockets? Do you realize that during rush hour on the brown line, there are hundreds of standing passengers anyway? Do you really think these mysterious pickpockets are only going to show up just because there are 2 new SRO cars? As if an extra 50-100 people standing really make that much of a difference to them.

[It seems to me we're all overreacting to the recent sudden increase in ridership caused – mostly, I think – by the increase in gas prices.]

Perhaps, but it's not like gas prices are going to fall dramatically any time soon. I agree that ending the three-track work will help. But even if it makes things fine for the time being we're still most likely looking at gas prices continuing to rise and ridership increasing along with it. So we have the same problem again when, a year from now? Less?

[Why can't we run trains every two or three minutes during peak periods? I've personally seen it done in places like London , Paris, and Rome.]

I'd like to see this too, but the key question here is if the CTA has the rolling stock to pull it off. I honesly have no idea if they do or not (I'd guess no). Anyone else have any insight on this question?

Will the SRO cars have the STOP WHINING ad wrap that's already on one of the Brown Line trains? It's an experiment. It's two cars on an eight-car train. If you don't want to get on the seatless cars, get on the one of the six with seats. As for pickpockets, you're more likely to be robbed on the street where the assailant can make an easier get-away. RonH must have two hats in his office. One reads "Damned if I Do," the other "Damned if I Don't." Every morning he has to decide which one to wear.

I agree with some of you that this is an overreaction to the ridership and increase. And just because this is an idea that isn't rotten, that in theory could help, does not mean it's one that should be implemented. (As I blogged in response to the idea on Chicago Carless) It would generate problems. What I foresee includes:

Delays during rush hour as riders hold doors while they pass along the platform to find a car with seats;

Crowding becoming worse in cars with seats as riders opt out of the seatless vehicles;

Danger as riders pass between cars on moving trains to find a car with seats;

Inconvenience as seniors and the access challenged are forced to hustle down packed rush-hour platforms to find a car with seats--or accidently board a seatless vehicle; and

Damaged credibility as riders board uncrowded cars at the edge of rush hour and still can't sit down in some of them--although they should be able to do so.

I also don't like that Huberman keeps forwarding plans and policies that have not had a thorough public vetting. As far as this plan is concerned, sometimes when you just don't have the right solution yet, it's a better, less damaging idea to do nothing.

Dave & strannix, I agree that there likely aren't going to be *more* pickpockets out there, but that's because they're already operating at capacity too; see my earlier comments. Since their technique is to act as if they're the last person trying to get onto a packed CTA car, covering their reaching into a back pocket with their shoving and then backing away with the wallet just as the doors close with a muttered "guess I'll take the next one," expanding the capacity actually may give them fewer opportunities. (Merely expanding the *platform*'s capacity gives them fewer opportunities.) But it isn't unreasonable to believe that some of them will look to the SRO cars for opportunity; mobility and the ability to vanish quickly into a crowd are beneficial to them. As I said before, it's all up to the passengers, victims and witnesses alike, to react.

(I do have to acknowledge that I haven't used Belmont and Fullerton during commutes since three-track work started, especially Phase 2, so perhaps the extra CTA personnel on the platforms has driven pickpockets away or elsewhere.)

Sara, yes, you did say "Increasing the seat size in this country only encourages obesity," not what you tried to recast it as. That said, I understood the comment you responded to to be a joke, and made one myself based on your comment.

My understanding, and the best I can do citing sources is that I think I saw it here long ago, is that three minutes is about the minimum headway. Back before Huberman destroyed the notion of schedules earlier this year, the posted times on the platforms at Red Line stations generally bore this out. A quick check of the vague intervals Huberman now uses shows that it's every 4 minutes on the Red and every 3 on the Brown. As many people have noted, while three-track work is going on it's unlikely they're able to meet the minimum headway, but I don't imagine they can tighten these stated minimums much; I'd figure they wouldn't publish that minimum unless they had the rolling stock to accomplish it, however.

(And KevinB, I got the joke in your "stacking like cordwood" post. Just so you know *someone* did.)

By the way, I just don't get this idea that passing between cars is dangerous. It was allowed until just recently and I myself don't recall any incidents at all happening as a result, though maybe those memories have been pushed away by much greater dangers such as standing on a platform or taking the Blue Line. If properly done (and it's hard to do it improperly), the doors themselves swing to the sides to prevent any possibility of a rider toppling over onto the tracks.

The SRO trains are a good idea -- the (mostly unfounded) complaints sound like they're coming from people that have never taken a packed-to-the-gills Brown Line home from work. Think of it like the small train from the O'Hare parking lot to the terminals -- there are no seats there, but people seem to manage just fine. In fact, one of the worst parts of standing on a packed Brown Line is having to lean over or stand inches from someone in a seat, just because of the way the standing area is configured. Anyone that gets on a rush-hour train in the Loop anywhere past the Library or so probably doesn't get a seat anyway, so standing is pretty much the norm. There are a lot of people that are fine with that.

I don't get the "dangerous" passing between cars thing, either. On the Metra, you can freely pass through cars without worry -- it's not even forbidden. Granted, those passages are covered on all sides, but it would be *extremely* hard to fall from between CTA cars accidentally. That's probably more of a panhandler/scam artist rule than a safety issue..

What I'd really like to know is: Who are all these people that *always* get seats on the Brown Line that'll be SO inconvenienced by these SRO cars? The Trib comments are saturated with people wailing (think gnashing of teeth, wringing of hands) about how they won't be able to sit anymore. In the last two or three years I've NEVER been able to sit down on the Brown Line during the afternoon commute home. I have, however, had to let trains pass without getting on because there was simply no room to board. So, I guess it's people like me that this idea is supposed to be targeting: people who stand all the way home, anyway. This is not to say, however, that I think this is a good idea. The jury is still out. Everyone can guess, but nobody *really* knows how this will play out, if people will just get on the SRO car, or if they'll avoid it like the plague. For my part, if it means the difference between getting on the train or having to wait for the next one, the oh well, I was gonna have to stand all of the way home anyway.

And as for car placement - when RonH first mentioned the idea at Kevin's lunch, he specifically stated that they would use 2200 cars, or the cars that you see on the Blue and Pink Lines with the folding doors (that aren't handicap-accessible to begin with). And like they're used on the Blue Line, it would be safe to say that they'd be in the middle of each train's consist, rather than at either end, as the newer rolling stock are more reliable as operator's cars - especially the Brown Line's assigned rolling stock - though they still use them as such on the Pink Line when they run 4-car trains on that line.

[I also don't like that Huberman keeps forwarding plans and policies that have not had a thorough public vetting.]

But isn't that exactly what a trial is - a thorough public vetting? Nobody knows how this is really going to work until it has a chance to.

Bob S.: the doors open in, not out, so they do not prevent people from falling between cars. I guess it is easier to screw that up than you thought. Sheesh.

Maybe the CTA could MARK the cars without seats and people could avoid them if they wanted. So much whining.

Strannix, the Pink Line was a trial, too. It seems to me everything that has been a trial at the CTA in the five years I've been in Chicago except for the rush-hour Cermak Blue Line trains afetr the Pink Line's inauguration has never gone away. "Trial" is just a code word for, "We're gonna do it no matter what you think but we'll soften the blow by being disingenuous about it."

On a slightly related topic, why does CTA insist on buying buses with a 2 x 2 seating orientation? It makes for a horrible experience for standees. I'd rather have fewer seats in exchange for a more comfortable experience during those times when I have to stand. The most frustrating part of it is that older CTA buses that are being phased out (like the TMC and flxible models) have a better seating arrangement than all the new models....so I hope it doesn't reflect a shift in the wrong direction concerning CTA seating philosophy.

Mike Doyle: maybe the "trials" you cited have been embraced by the public, and therefore have been made permanent.

I cannot fathom the whining about the seatless cars. Don't ride in them if you don't want to. Done. No problem. Assuming 200+ people DO ride them, you will be better off than you were in the old six car days, since six cars of seating will still be available, but 200+ people will be in two other cars.

[ It seems to me everything that has been a trial at the CTA in the five years I've been in Chicago except for the rush-hour Cermak Blue Line trains afetr the Pink Line's inauguration has never gone away.]

Has the Pink Line been unsuccessful in a way that justifies scrapping it?

One "trial" off the top of my head that's been abandoned in practice, if not officially, is the Go Lane for Chicago Card users on buses. Sure, the stickers are still there on the window, but there's no effort by either the public or by the CTA to use it as intended.

David, thanks for the correction. Been that long since I used 'em, or saw anyone else use 'em, I guess.

[David, thanks for the correction. Been that long since I used 'em, or saw anyone else use 'em, I guess.]

Not to get too far off track here, but I've noticed myself that there's been a drastic downturn in the number of people switching cars in the past few months. Is this something that's been enforced more lately? Even Javon, the ex-con panhandler on the Red Line, has stopped moving between trains, I've noticed - he'll get out and switch cars on the platform at stops.

strannix: uh, a lot of us would use the "go lane" on buses if people wouldn't INSIST on standing in front of the scanner *or* if people would get the idea and move to the right so chicago card people could get on. fact of the matter is ... people don't want to get cut in front of in line and then have a potential last seat get taken from them. that's why that never worked. cause trust me ... those of us with the cards would be more than happy to blow past all the people fumbling with the old plastic cards.

and standing ...

people who crowd the doorways
people who don't know how to hold on properly

people who want to lean on shit to read their book/newspaper and not stand next to someone, making more room

gropers and pervs

people who have disabilities/lots of stuff/don't feel well (rife with potential for fainting and "medical emergencies," thus causing ever more delays)

all the sudden herks and jerks and slamming on the brakes of bad/inexperienced drivers causing lots of the aforementioned to fall, fly around, etc.

all the long ass delays with no ability to get off the train

i'll repeat what i said over at chicagoist ...
let's say i think to myself, "aww hell, i guess i'll get on here at chicago ... i can make it to southport. it's only six stops." i can say from many personal experiences that those six stops have often taken well over an hour, and that my "i'm feeling fine fresh out of work feeling" can turn to "i'm feeling really not good and need to sit down" for a variety of reasons over the span of an hour.

sometimes, having someone get off at a stop and having the ability to snag his/her seat is really a godsend.