Are there any Chicago suburbs with a lot of character, subway access, and safe yet affordable? (Schaumburg: rent, condo)

[Tiger Beer]

So the suburbs are basically off the subway lines? Looks like I'll look into the city proper then

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

So the suburbs are basically off the subway lines? Looks like I'll look into the city proper then

I asked before but you didn't answer, do you really need "subway" access? (Note that very little of the city's train system is actually underground; most of it is either elevated or grade-level and that's why you're getting so much flak for calling them subway lines.) If you're just looking for the ability to commute downtown for work or for the occasional outing, there are lots of commuter rail lines serving the suburbs. And you still didn't give us any indication of what you consider "safe" or "affordable."

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

So the suburbs are basically off the subway lines? Looks like I'll look into the city proper then

The following suburbs have heavy rail rapid transit service within their city limits: Oak Park, Forest Park, Cicero, Evanston, Skokie, Wilmette.

Depending on your definitions, some/all/or none of these towns have character, are safe, and are affordable.

[chet everett]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

Headways?

If by headway you mean the time between trains, I suppose Metra COULD run more frequent trains, but their operating board is not so foolish as to run trains that are unprofitable.

Generally I think that non-rush hour commuters would have to increase by orders of magnitude for the CTA to actually make money on that service, and to add to the OP's reason for posting, I suppose if one were a student with an irregular schedule the frequency of trains might be a deciding factor, but the evidence of CTA ridership suggests that is not a major need of many...

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by chet everett

If by headway you mean the time between trains, I suppose Metra COULD run more frequent trains, but their operating board is not so foolish as to run trains that are unprofitable.

Generally I think that non-rush hour commuters would have to increase by orders of magnitude for the CTA to actually make money on that service, and to add to the OP's reason for posting, I suppose if one were a student with an irregular schedule the frequency of trains might be a deciding factor, but the evidence of CTA ridership suggests that is not a major need of many...

I don't think the OP is asking about the financial underpinnings of the various transit agencies. The fact is that some people find value in transit that has frequent enough headways where consulting a schedule is unnecessary. The CTA (mostly) fulfills this role, whereas Metra does not.

[deechee]

Originally Posted by chet everett

When did Glenwood get Metra service?

It's minutes away. It fulfills the other requirements.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by oakparkdude

The following suburbs have heavy rail rapid transit service within their city limits: Oak Park, Forest Park, Cicero, Evanston, Skokie, Wilmette.

Others that have access literally on their border are Park Ridge and River Forest. Oh, and Rosemont has a CTA station too but nobody really lives there. The Rosemont stop is basically a commuter station.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Drover

Others that have access literally on their border are Park Ridge and River Forest. Oh, and Rosemont has a CTA station too but nobody really lives there. The Rosemont stop is basically a commuter station.

Oh yeah, forgot about Rosemont.

[Tiger Beer]

Sorry, a little background. I grew up in Michigan, but I have also lived in New York City. I loved NYC.

I never had much interest in Chicago, hence I know so little about it. I've been there a few times, and it seems surrounded by a lot of massive housing complexes, and then you get down into the downtown and it is quite nice. I'm considering Chicago as it is the closest good city to my hometown in Michigan.

I actually much prefer living IN the city...but these days I have a young kid, 1 years old. So wherever I'd live, it would have to be good enough for a 1 year old to play, etc.

Regarding work...well, unsure about what I'll do, but it seems like Chicago would have more work opportunities than, Detroit for example. So I can't necessarily say I'd be working downtown. Actually the downtown area of Chicago seems quite small compared to say Manhattan.

I probably need to do a lot more researcher.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Tiger Beer

I probably need to do a lot more researcher.

And since you still won't answer some basic follow-up questions that would let us help you, looks like you're on your own with that research.