As for side seats, I’m all for it. People can move into the center of the cars, and they’ve had them for nearly a decade. One big note, though, when comparing Chicago’s trains to New York’s trains: New York’s cars are much longer than Chicago’s by at least 10-15 feet in length. And because New York’s trains use AC electrical, there is no “jolt” every time a train accelerates or slows down as happens on CTA.

Another thing: why does it take YEARS to make a few new train cars? CTA’s proposal went out in January 2005, (they were approved in late 2006) and it’ll be late 2010 before the FIRST of the new cars arrive? Boeing can deliver 50 747s and 20 of the new 787 Dreamliners in the same amount of time it’s taken whatever Gepeto, Inc. to roll out even the first train car.

Steve, true, sideways seats are aimed at getting more people on trains. But it wasn’t only in Chicago where riders who were surveyed said they didn’t want to lose forwards/backwards seats. Riders in New York told NYC Transit the same thing–that was back when I was the associate director of the Transit Riders Council there. Just like the CTA, agency managers just shrugged their shoulders and did it anyway.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think anyone should bring their bike on the L. Take a bus–that’s what the bike racks are for. The L is too confined a system to have to nuzzle up against dirt-covered tires.

@Mike: Since the CTA doesn’t have any more trains to put on the tracks, they are going to put more people on the trains.

Also, about sideways seating: it’s design is to combat the same problem as right now. Put more people on trains. And sideways seating does that without sacrificing the amount of seats. The seating configuration also puts an extra wheelchair (or bike) space in the car.

I’m pretty sure you know all this, though.

Or we could just bunch 6 buses together and run them down dearborn – that would effectively be a train.