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.
But Chicago is nearly twice as large as Toronto, so it needs larger coverage.
By population, the cities themselves are nearly identical in population. By land area, Toronto is actually slightly physically larger.
Are you talking about the metro level? There's nothing that says a large metro area must inherently have a large network of PT to cover it. LA seems like an obvious example that is much bigger than either with much inferior PT.
By population, the cities themselves are nearly identical in population. By land area, Toronto is actually slightly physically larger.
Are you talking about the metro level? There's nothing that says a large metro area must inherently have a large network of PT to cover it. LA seems like an obvious example that is much bigger than either with much inferior PT.
Clearly though, Toronto has been growing more recently than Chicago, which has been shrinking. Before Toronto created its metropolitan district, essentially annexing its 'county' suburbs in the 1970s, Toronto city, the traditional urban area of town with less than 800K, was comparable in size/population to Cleveland and Baltimore. Toronto is actively expanding a very good rail network to cover this larger city (the most recent northern expansion of Line 1 to the Vaughan Metro Centre being a recent example). So just looking at the L's size, alone, isn't the most accurate comparison, esp given that the L misses significant swaths of Chicago's sprawling in-city area.
Clearly though, Toronto has been growing more recently than Chicago, which has been shrinking. Before Toronto created its metropolitan district, essentially annexing its 'county' suburbs in the 1970s, Toronto city, the traditional urban area of town with less than 800K, was comparable in size/population to Cleveland and Baltimore. Toronto is actively expanding a very good rail network to cover this larger city (the most recent northern expansion of Line 1 to the Vaughan Metro Centre being a recent example). So just looking at the L's size, alone, isn't the most accurate comparison, esp given that the L misses significant swaths of Chicago's sprawling in-city area.
Why would one just look at the L when looking at Chicago transit in the city? One has to consider L, CTA bus, SS electric, and Metra. The L isn't the only form of PT in Chicago, and I think this mixture of PT makes for a more extended network than in Toronto, so I voted for Chicago. It's not really a question of which will have better PT in the future...
Where have you been outside of downtown in Chicago? The blue line is interesting and a crapshoot as far as experience goes. I used to take it all the time. And after living in Chicago for nearly a decade, the only crime I ever saw was a guy pickpocketing a lady on a very busy train...which I've also seen in cities like Rome first hand. Other than that, never once had an issue with security in nearly a decade.
But my question remains..where outside of downtown have you spent time?
Well, I haven't been taking the train to Englewood or Riverdale or something, my experience comes from Chicago's 'regular' neighborhoods outside of downtown. My concern wasn't just the trains themselves but also the stops and the areas surrounding those.
It's interesting that no one has mentioned Toronto's significantly better ridership - 950K daily riders for the TTC subway vs 750K for the L. Doesn't that speak to the effectiveness of the service to some extent?
It's interesting that no one has mentioned Toronto's significantly better ridership - 950K daily riders for the TTC subway vs 750K for the L. Doesn't that speak to the effectiveness of the service to some extent?
It’s also indicative of how Toronto has built out areas away from its downtown by doing a large amount of transit-oriented development as well as Chicago’s issues on its west and south side where the population has dropped substantially.
The good news is that if Chicago manages to better tackle its issues and city hits substantial economic and population growth, then there’s a substantial amount of underutilized infrastructure that can be leveraged.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-18-2018 at 11:51 AM..
Why would one just look at the L when looking at Chicago transit in the city? One has to consider L, CTA bus, SS electric, and Metra. The L isn't the only form of PT in Chicago, and I think this mixture of PT makes for a more extended network than in Toronto, so I voted for Chicago. It's not really a question of which will have better PT in the future...
Metra is a part of Chicago/Chicago area mass transit. It's the 2nd largest in the country in terms of route miles and patronage... But, as good as some of the individual Metra lines are, it still seems disjointed -- 4 different downtown terminals, and only 1 of the Metra lines (3 branches) are electrified -- of course the South Shore/South Bend line is also electric. I just wish there was better connectivity and coordination between the Metra lines and the L, as well as between the Metra lines themselves.
I voted for Chicago ... by a nose. Yes the L is a larger network than the TTC subway, but Chicago is a much larger metro than Toronto (nearly 10M vs. nearly 6M), plus, Toronto is increasingly using LRT to expand the reach of the subway. The 4.3 mile Scarborough Line is LRT, but I believe is being converted to HRT to extend the Bloor-Danforth Line. Also, there's the Harbour LRT which starts out as a subway connection to the Union Station subway stop, and the extensive Ellington crosstown subway-surface LRT under construction. So really, to be fair to Toronto, rapid transit isn't just restricted to the 3 HRT lines.
Obviously the Chicago L, begun in 1892, is one of the classic, world legacy transit networks. But it is outdated and clunky in many ways, like too many, close-spaced stations in some areas, like the far north Red Line with stations every few blocks greatly slowing trains traversing such a huge city. Also, while quaint and interesting, those old, weather-exposed wooden platforms, esp in the downtown area, are not conducive to the tastes of a cyber-generation that likes creature comforts. Add to that the archaic poor transfer aspects of certain lines in/near the Loop as well as at-grade switching and crossing between lines, which slow trains considerably at times, esp during rush hour. Maybe that was cool for a Late 19th, early 20th century city, but not for 2018.
In addition, GO-Transit is in the in the early stages of electrifying a number of Toronto's several commuter rail lines (including the recently added airport branch) -- it's a very extensive, impressive system as it is. Once this occurs, along with the aforementioned Ellington expansion, I will have to switch my vote to Tornoto, given there are not any such major expansions/conversions for the L anytime soon.
How in the world is Toronto able to fund all of the construction of all these rapid transit lines???? This is BILLIONS AND BILLIONS worth of expansion/new lines!
Metra is a part of Chicago/Chicago area mass transit. It's the 2nd largest in the country in terms of route miles and patronage... But, as good as some of the individual Metra lines are, it still seems disjointed -- 4 different downtown terminals, and only 1 of the Metra lines (3 branches) are electrified -- of course the South Shore/South Bend line is also electric. I just wish there was better connectivity and coordination between the Metra lines and the L, as well as between the Metra lines themselves.
Right, Metra is really disjointed with its multiple downtown terminals—they should instead be linked and operate as through-running tracks which would align city and suburb interests since it means Metra and the South Shore Line can better leverage its existing infrastructure to more speedily and frequently run to multiple job centers and be more usable as essentially rapid transit for city residents. There’s the Crossrail Chicago proposal and that would greatly enhance mass transit for the area. I imagine that a north-south heavy rail rapid transit line from the north side express tracks that the Purple Line runs on sometimes going into a subway and down Halstead would greatly connect multiple Metra and L routes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by usroute10
How in the world is Toronto able to fund all of the construction of all these rapid transit lines???? This is BILLIONS AND BILLIONS worth of expansion/new lines!
Priorities? We did sink trillions of dollars and a large number of man-hours and lives into an unnecessary war. That could’ve built a lot of infrastructure instead of being used to blow up infrastructure in other countries.
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.
