Passenger Trains > "CTA puts riders in a N.Y. seat of mind "

I especially like the part about the pizza:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/8856525-418/cta-puts-riders-ina-ny-seat-of-mind.html

Did anyone catch the part where the reporter, apparently a fairly large gent, sits down between two fellow CTA riders: "My shoulders pushed both of them outward — Joa against a passenger and Decker up against a patrician."

I can't imagine a patrician riding the CTA. Even if this were the case, one should refrain from making such class distinctions. On the CTA we are all passengers, not passengers and patricians.

Colehour:

Partition, partition, not patrician!!!

I have to agree with the Chicago sentiments -- I prefer the traditional 2+2 seating to the long-bench model. Partly because it means you might actually be facing the direction of movement, and partly because of the spread-out room (arm on window sill) mentioned. However, I suspect the new models will be much easier to clean.

RevRandy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Colehour:
>
> Partition, partition, not patrician!!!

The Sun-Times must have corrected the mistake. In the version I read it was clearly "patrician," which seems fairly likely to have been a spell check correction gone awry. (The quotation was lifted via select and copy from the article, so it was not just my wild imagination!)

I thought that it was quite funny and hoped that I conveyed that in my post.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/11 09:26 by colehour.

RevRandy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have to agree with the Chicago sentiments -- I
> prefer the traditional 2+2 seating to the
> long-bench model. Partly because it means you
> might actually be facing the direction of
> movement, and partly because of the spread-out
> room (arm on window sill) mentioned. However, I
> suspect the new models will be much easier to
> clean.

Most of my experience with facing seat equipment was in Italy. When I arrived ten years ago, many of the buses I rode were configured with that kind of seating. They seemed to be designed to accommodate lots of standees. When I left in 2007 buses had more 2+2 seating than long bench seating (and finally had air conditioning). The streetcars and subway cars had the long benches as well as 2+2 seating. People didn't seem to mind and it was more or less expected that at times you were packed in like sardines. There's a different attitude toward personal space there, as well as to the use of public transportation. (Crowded buses are also great for pickpockets, as I learned to my regret a couple of months after my arrival in Rome.)

I don't think anyone actually *likes* "bowling alley* seats. In New York, it's more a matter of just simply making room for all those who need to ride. Back in the bad old days (1970s), New York actually considered buying cars with no seats at all, the thinking being that they could get by with fewer cars during the rush hour.

I was always a big fan of the CTA's transverse seats, and especially of the single "railfan seat" directly under the front left window of each car. That seat, in the head car, was mine on many an Evanston Exprss trip when I commuted from Hyde Park to Evanston to attend Northwestern. Newer CTA cars have full-width cabs, so bye-bye railfan seat.

I'll like the bowling alley seating even less, but then the CTA has gone from being the most professional organization in the transit industry (1970s) to being a basket case run by political hacks.

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'll like the bowling alley seating even less, but
> then the CTA has gone from being the most
> professional organization in the transit industry
> (1970s) to being a basket case run by political
> hacks.

How is the decision on seating arrangements indicative of an organization run by, as you put it, "political hacks?" Seems to me that carrying more riders in a car to reduce capital costs of ordering more cars and/or operating costs of running more trains, is a cost-control decision. At a time when transit systems all over the US are being criticized for being economically inefficient, this is one action to address that criticism.

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think anyone actually *likes* "bowling
> alley* seats. In New York, it's more a matter of
> just simply making room for all those who need to
> ride. Back in the bad old days (1970s), New York
> actually considered buying cars with no seats at
> all, the thinking being that they could get by
> with fewer cars during the rush hour.
>
> I was always a big fan of the CTA's transverse
> seats, and especially of the single "railfan seat"
> directly under the front left window of each car.
> That seat, in the head car, was mine on many an
> Evanston Exprss trip when I commuted from Hyde
> Park to Evanston to attend Northwestern. Newer
> CTA cars have full-width cabs, so bye-bye railfan
> seat.
>
> I'll like the bowling alley seating even less, but
> then the CTA has gone from being the most
> professional organization in the transit industry
> (1970s) to being a basket case run by political
> hacks.


PATH used a mixture of bench seats and 2x2 seating in its new car orders up until the most recent order. When the being-retired PA cars were sent out for rebuilding, they came back with long bench seating (only). Allows more standing room capacity.

<Seems to me that carrying more riders in a car to reduce capital costs >

Carrying more riders in a car is measured by flawed techniques so capacity is not necessarily increased:

1) 2 narrow seats where one's shoulders can spill over to the window sill and the others person's into the aisle does not mean 8 people can fit on a bowling alley bench intended for 8. There is no room for each person to spill over. 1 or 2 seats will remain vacant. We see this in New York all the time.

2) Legs stretching into the aisle take up more standing room than experts calculate that would otherwise be tucked into the seat in front of them.

Where the transit bureaucrats shoot a picture of an empty car with Manhattan-style seating to show off all the space there is, items 1 & 2 are not considered.

<At a time when transit systems all over the US are being criticized for being economically inefficient, this is one action to address that criticism.>

And who is doing the criticizing ? Politicians. Most of them have never stepped foot on a transit vehicle.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/11 15:58 by joemvcnj.

I agree with the comments about bowling alley seats. Especially with the first Kawasaki R62 cars, the bucket seats were too small (buckets were used so bums couldn't sleep on the benches, as they did on the older cars). This practice has continued, so you often see empty seats. And people do stick legs out into the aisle.

Still, with short station spacing and very heavy ridership (such as on PATH) the bowling alley arrangement should enable cars to load heavier. When I was at NYCTA, we found that trains of R-46 cars (which have some transverse seats) would simply not load as heavily as trains of older R32 cars because people were reluctant to pack into the spaces next to the transverse seats.

But then why not just buy cars with no seats at all? CTA doesn't really load all that heavily, compared to NYC or even Washington. And Washington uses transverse seats.

< we found that trains of R-46 cars (which have some transverse seats) would simply not load as heavily as trains of older R32 cars because people were reluctant to pack into the spaces next to the transverse seats. >

Right observation, but there is more to it than that: A 600' long consist R44/R46/R68's have only only 80% of the doors of R1's thru R42's, which means poor ingress/egress, which slows trains, which affects overall line capacity.

The TA ignored transit advocates until the late 1980's. Then the R46's were sent to M-K in Hornell for rebuilding, so the R32's had to cover the "E" train. Then the TA noticed that the flow of Queens Blvd expresses improved, even though they were interspersed with R46's on the "F". Lesson Learned. All 1,900 or so of the R143's and R160's are back to 60's cars with 4 sets of doors.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> And who is doing the criticizing ? Politicians.
> Most of them have never stepped foot on a transit
> vehicle.

Yes, politicians are doing much of the criticizing. However, just read the blogs following Internet articles about transit systems and you will see plenty of transit bashing by citizens. Additionally, many so-called "think tanks" criticize transit systems for being inefficient.