MBTA to remove seats from Red Line cars (Big Red)

I don't know if this is where the "T" got the idea from, but CTA has rolled out a similar program here in Chicago, where certain rush hour trains are running with "seatless" cars. It's an experimental project that started about a month ago, and is being tried out on the Brown line, which has the highest ridership on the system, and is tentatively scheduled to be rolled out to other routes later on in 2009 if successful. During the experiment, 10 cars have had the seats permanently removed, and are used as the middle two cars within the normal six-car rush hour consist; also, it's confined to 10 dedicated sets of equipment used during rush hours only, so there's no additional labor involved in adding or cutting the cars. Initial passenger feedback before the experiment began was mixed; some liked it, others decried the removal of seats (and generally used "cattle-car" references within their criticisms), but it sure was a hit with CTA brass at the time, no doubt due to potential increased ridership it could bring. A final decision on a system-wide rollout is due in the spring...

sery2831 wrote:Channel 7 had the story on it today, and showed car 01802 as being modified. The outside of the car is labeled "Big Red". I think this a bad idea and not really well thought out. They need to add standee poles in the center of the car!!! All they have done is replace seats with a place to stand. How do you stand in the middle of the car if everyone is standing where the seats were? There won't be enough to hold onto if you pack the car, handles by the windows isn't enough. The smarter thing would have been to remove the seats on a few cars at the opposite end of the cabs. Not the entire car!

I think thats the best idea yet - remove the seats from some areas of the car (not the whole thing) and add in standee poles so theres something to hang on to.

jck wrote:I almost always stand, so I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think they should have redesigned the car with a new set of poles.

Move the poles away from the entrances (which causes people to stand in the doors and block boarding/exiting passengers).

But when the people are packed like sardines and the people standing near the doors have nothing to hold on to, wouldn't they fall off the car when the doors open?

I don't like this idea one bit. I take up more space standing up than sitting down. If the train has big red cars, I hope the operator keeps the doors open long enough for people to walk to a regular car.

In Japan the seats fold up. So, during rush hour, trains have their seats folded up and everyone stands. During off-peak times, the seats are folded back down allowing people to sit. If this experiment is successful, it would be nicer to see something like this.

I can't wrap my head around this logic:
"There's more people riding the T, so lets have less seats, because that's what we need, less seats."

Let's see if this works:
"There's more people who are thirsty, so lets take away some of the water."
No?

Ok, lets try this:
"People are taller now, so lets make houses with shorter roofs."

Nope, still doesn't work...
Anyone?

bierhere wrote:In Japan the seats fold up. So, during rush hour, trains have their seats folded up and everyone stands. During off-peak times, the seats are folded back down allowing people to sit. If this experiment is successful, it would be nicer to see something like this.

That's actually a pretty good idea. They could put latches with locks to keep the seats up during rush hours, and then quickly unlock the seats and put them back down when the peak period ends. It would also eliminate the need to restrict trains to rush hour duty.

bierhere wrote:In Japan the seats fold up. So, during rush hour, trains have their seats folded up and everyone stands. During off-peak times, the seats are folded back down allowing people to sit. If this experiment is successful, it would be nicer to see something like this.

Easier said than done on the Red Line where the seat frames and standee poles are one!

The newer NYCT cars have folding ADA seats and also increase standee space.

I really have no problem with fewer seats. The seats are too narrow for people taller than about 5'10" anyway, and I refuse to sit unless the car is pretty empty, or I can get a seat at the end of the row. Being stuck between two people in the middle of row is far less comfortable than standing.

I still think the biggest problem is the position of the poles for the standees, seats or no seats. Their current position encourages crowding in the doorways which really slows down boarding, especially as there's always at least one person who refuses to move out of the way. The seatless cars still have this problem, so I don't anticipate much improvement.

-Garrett wrote:I can't wrap my head around this logic:
"There's more people riding the T, so lets have less seats, because that's what we need, less seats."

Let's see if this works:
"There's more people who are thirsty, so lets take away some of the water."
No?

Ok, lets try this:
"People are taller now, so lets make houses with shorter roofs."

Nope, still doesn't work...
Anyone?

Your analogies don't work. People don't need a seat to ride the T, like they need water to quench thirst. Anyone who rides the subway during rush hour knows that more capacity would useful, seats or no seats.

(copied from another forum) The seatless concept goes back perhaps a century and the reason was the same as today. There are some almost seatless cars on display at Seashore Trolley Museum. One is from Budapest, Hungary and has for seats two benches at opposite ends. Another is from Rome, Italy and has just six single transverse seats along one side.

"Back then", public transit was in the dreaded private sector. So companies tried to provide whatever would produce the highest profits. Cars with few seats of course worked best where there was tremendous passenger demand. But foldable seats would be equipment that would get broken often or messed around by passengers often. I don't know of examples "back then" of foldable seats other than on a few double ended streetcars where boards across the unused "left side" doors provided additional seating.

The biggest problem here is that with its wonderful signal system and slow orders, the Red Line is at capacity - especially the Braintree Branch. The designers promised us shorter headways, but we now get 4 minutes, while the 7 line in NYC runs at 90 seconds or less with ancient signalling. An 11 car train on that line is 561 feet long, while a six car Red Line train is a mere 420. Guess which has more capacity, stops every 5 blocks or so and is still jam packed at rush hour!

Adding extra trains to Braintree sends the Ashmont Branch into overload too, so that won't work unless the headway can be addressed. Additional platform lengthening is not feasible due to curves and crossovers being fouled, and would be very expensive at places like Porter Sq. and South Station, close to impossible at Charles and Andrew.

Remember when the South Shore Extension first opened? It was expected to carry fewer passengers than the Ashmont Branch so it got cars with less standee space, fewer stops and a 70 mph speed limit. Today the cars have minimal seating, but still don't accomodate standees well, a stop at JFK has been added, and the speed limit is down to 50 if not 40, 25 or 10, plus we can't run trains more than 4 minutes apart!

Come on folks - the Green Line does better than that and the Mattapan Line runs every 5 minutes with no signals!

>>confined to ... dedicated sets of equipment used during rush hours only

This is the part that makes no sense. After paying X00,000 dollars per car, mass transit agencies would then set them aside for most of the day to sit there and depreciate while their loan payments are accruing and maintenance schedules are ticking away? Has anybody in management heard of capital utilization?

No problem for the old B&M/NH/B&A commuters; the companies just kept fully depreciated ancient coaches sitting around most of the day. It's a different story with the contemporary safety- and ADA- compliant, taxpayer-subsidized sets of wheels with all the bells and whistles (sometimes literally) we have today.

Flip-down seats sounds like the perfect solution.

PBM

The choice of the 01800s was the logical one since the other cars have door engines and heat blowers under some seats, which would not yield any space. The 01800s have the tightest seating anyway so the seating is less spacious. Adding standee poles at the center of the car would help without removing any seats!

R36 Combine Coach wrote:The newer NYCT cars have folding ADA seats and also increase standee space.

The new Blue Line cars have 3 seats that fold up. Maybe they should secure those up at rush hours as a trial.

Also the standee poles between the seats not near the doors have been removed. I so unless you are tall there no way they can pack the center of the cars in. I see a nasty fall coming with a hard stop.