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.
Toronto definitely. Chicago is dense in the core and falls apart after that.
Lol....many of the densest areas of Chicago aren't even in the core. They are north of the core along the lakefront. Nice try with the fake alternative facts though.
Lol....many of the densest areas of Chicago aren't even in the core. They are north of the core along the lakefront. Nice try with the fake alternative facts though.
I think he was talking about the urban core compared to the metro area (which yes, is measured differently in Canada). When looking at the data on a metro level, the dense lakefront neighborhoods would probably be considered part of the urban core even if they aren’t downtown.
Lol....many of the densest areas of Chicago aren't even in the core. They are north of the core along the lakefront. Nice try with the fake alternative facts though.
I think he was talking about the urban core compared to the metro area (which yes, is measured differently in Canada). When looking at the data on a metro level, the dense lakefront neighborhoods would probably be considered part of the urban core even if they aren’t downtown. The problem is the OP didn’t specifically ask about the metro area coverage, so we don’t know if it’s relevant.
Yeah - am I right to be skeptical of what Elon Musk is proposing though? 15 minutes from O’Hare to Downtown seems very ambitious.
The ambitious part is not the 12-15 minutes from O'Hare to downtown. With free flowing traffic in a car that trip is 25 minutes. The ambitious part is that he wants to start drilling in 3-4 months and open in 4 years time. THAT is the crazy part, not the time from downtown to O'Hare. That seems doable. No idea how it'll turn out but if it goes well then it's a win. So far it's all privately funded too and the city already has a lot of a downtown terminus already built for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox
I think he was talking about the urban core compared to the metro area (which yes, is measured differently in Canada). When looking at the data on a metro level, the dense lakefront neighborhoods would probably be considered part of the urban core even if they aren’t downtown.
No idea. In the majority of cities not named NYC, I take "core" to basically mean the central city - "downtown." For the top 20 census tracts in Chicago, 8 are downtown and the other 12 are not downtown (and a few of the "downtown" tracts you could argue aren't technically downtown, but that's another story). --> Illinois Population Density Census Tract Rank. If you expand that out to the top 50, then only 10 are downtown. The other 40 are outside of the downtown core. People just assume that the densest parts of town are downtown because of all the high rises, but it's not true. The densest parts of town are north in areas like Lakeview, Uptown, Edgewater, Rogers Park, Lincoln Park, Albany Park, and even west in areas like Little Village. Anybody who thinks the densest parts of Chicago people-wise are downtown essentially do not know what they're talking about. Even going by community area, none of the downtown community areas are the densest. The densest is Edgewater - over 7.5 miles north of the heart of downtown.
Even if talking about a city versus the rest of metro area, that's not really that true of Chicago "falling apart" outside of it considering there are a handful of suburbs next to the city that are over 10K people per square mile -
As far as I know, the densest cities outside of Toronto are Mississauga (6391 ppsm), Brampton (5772 ppsm), Richmond Hill (4996 ppsm)...
--------------------------
As far as whose is better - I think it's pretty close. Both cities have pretty solid transit systems within the city itself with many different modes and hundreds of routes and stops amongst all the types.
Last edited by marothisu; 06-17-2018 at 07:52 PM..
No one will argue Chicago has no trolley lines. No plans for light rail either unlike some US cites for cheaper alternatives to elevated or subway lines much more pricey. Chicago's aim is continuing to upgrade its existing L lines for more decades use. Some date back to the 1800s and much of its elevated and subway portions to the early 20th century but for those lines partly in the medians of expressways.
Chicago's planed extensions are still AFTER most of its planned upgrades under construction are done. New stations too. I get a kick out of how someone know one city has far superior bus runs and coverage etc. I will just let Toronto boosters lessen Chicago's and every American cities. Most threads go that way. But for the US .... especially Chicago vs TO and TO and other cities. Even TO vs Australian cites I've read threads. But for the US .... Chicago's bus coverage is tops. Not saying #1 as another topic too.
Chicago's bus coverage is tops. Not saying #1 as another topic too.
I personally prefer elevated lines over subways. Love looking out seeing a live vibrant city in transformation in many parts and the daylight. Chicago has NO solely subway lines and basically only into the core do some lines become a subway for stretches. I like fact expressways were utilized for extending lines in the past.
US cities are not planning subways. LA has extensions under construction and the endless delays new lines for NYC. Mass transit isn't a core value in most US cities.
These two cities are in different Nations. Toronto is more like a fast growing US sunbelt city over a Northern US city in renewal in cores outward. Plenty of different issues too. I could go into how these cities zone differently to gain there built environment..... but it is another topic. A handful that do have mass transit in the US are lucky for sure. That includes Chicago.
The Elon Musk hyper-loop rail is suppose to be already have financing to go. As 12-minut O'Hare to downtown shuttle tunnel is the goal. Currently the L is a 40-minute trip. It is to cater to business travelers to tourist more then commuters. Unless you will go into O'Hare to bard it when built.
Drilling for Elon Musk Chicago O'Hare shuttle is scheduled to begin in 3-4 months....
The goal is to Musk to prove his technology works successfully and not to be profitable at least this first venture. If other cities chose it then .... profits to build will come. Chicago's CTA transit is not profitable. Time will tell on this hyper-loop completed and works as proposed.
Toronto wants to be seen as the newer progressive modern city of NA. Its planned and under construction subways are its claim to have it seen that way.
Chicago's L is part of its character and despite NYC Boroughs outside of Manhattan have EL lines too and Boston and Philly. NYC is known more for a subway .... but Chicago is known as the L city.
I honestly think these two cities are very evenly matched in transit, although they have different strengths and weaknesses.
Re: new subway lines, I agree they are rare in the US these days. But if a light rail line is underground it is technically a subway. Toronto’s new light rail line is a subway (Seattle is also building multiple new light rail subway lines).
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.
Chicago has NO solely subway lines and basically only into the core do some lines become a subway for stretches. I like fact expressways were utilized for extending lines in the past. 
