Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No it isn't. Metra is more akin to Amtrak with its diesel engines. DC Metro has more subways that than the L does. When has Metra ever had 5 minute headways?
No it isn't. Metra is more akin to Amtrak with its diesel engines. DC Metro has more subways that than the L does. When has Metra ever had 5 minute headways?
Not completely sure about this, but I believe the interlined parts of the current Metra Electric District line, which is electrified, did once have those rush hour frequencies and had something like 15 minute headways at all other times. Supposedly with fairly little work it can again and also be connected to and run along other lines to act as part of a system that essentially provides the kind of service Washington Metro has, but there's no funding or action for it in sight.
These are both nice systems. DC has the newer system. DC's metro stretches out to more suburbs. Besides going to Oak Park and Evanston (I guess Skokie too), the L is more contained to city proper, with Chicago's Metra serving the suburbs.
As others have mentioned, outside of small subway stretches of the Red and Blue lines, the majority of the L is above ground. I love getting to view the city and getting a feel for the fabric of the city riding the L. The L is also a lot more affordable than Metro.
I think that Chicago's Metra is most comparable to MARC or VRE.
Chicago has spent the last decade rebuilding much of its trackage and virtually all of its former slowzones from decrepit tracks that had deferred maintenance for decades have been eliminated.
Unfortunately, not much in expansion has occurred in the meantime, but keep in mind that the L was a much larger system than the Washington Metro for quite a while and now are just about on par.
The big thing is that Washington Metro has basically caught up since especially with the Silver Line greatly increasing frequencies for about two dozen stations, but it's anyone's guess which system will see more significant expansions after phase II of the Silver Line is completed.
Chicago has spent the last decade rebuilding much of its trackage and virtually all of its former slowzones from decrepit tracks that had deferred maintenance for decades have been eliminated.
Unfortunately, not much in expansion has occurred in the meantime, but keep in mind that the L was a much larger system than the Washington Metro for quite a while and now are just about on par.
The big thing is that Washington Metro has basically caught up since especially with the Silver Line greatly increasing frequencies for about two dozen stations, but it's anyone's guess which system will see more significant expansions after phase II of the Silver Line is completed.
Future expansion will probably be driven by demand and cost. Both cities need it as they both have under served areas. I would say DC needs more tunnels in the core to ease congestion when multiple lines come together to share one track. Chicago probably needs it more outside the city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
