"Chicago mostly attracts people from elsewhere in the Midwest..." Is that really true? (Lincoln: cost, safest)

[Chi-town Native]

...a bit unfair to be held to Washington DC's standard, as they are in the luxury seating on the federal gravy train.

[tribecavsbrowns]

Originally Posted by Lorielicious

Your definition of "better served" clearly varies from mine. Again, no one is disputing that the CTA covers most of the city; what's in dispute is just how "well-served" those places are.

I'd suggest you take a look at DC's Metro is you want to know what "well-served" looks like. I'd posit that DC and Boston have better public transit and are much easier to live in without a car than Chicago is. Yes, the CTA covers more area, but Chicago is a massively huge city area-wise, so saying it has the second most extensive reach isn't really saying anything at all about how mobile people in the city without cars are. Also, even though the buses cover much of the land, they are often irritatingly infrequent and stop running disappointingly early. Those without easy access to the L will find it difficult to get around town without a car, and moreover, even those along the L mainly stay along the route, primarily because much of the city is built up around the train lines, and also because screw the bus. It may be easy to get to downtown or Lincoln Park from Lakeview, but try going to, say Belmont Cragin (which isn't even that far away), and see how long that takes.

I think it's worth pointing out that our rail system is very good at getting people in and out of downtown (and everything on the route in between), but not so much at getting people around the city.

Edit: Just for fun, I'll throw in that DC's Metro has the second highest ridership the nation.

It's like 23 minutes from Grand/Cicero to Union Station on the Metra. Buses run along all the major streets, just like everywhere else in Chicago. And who moves to Belmont Cragin to ride the 'L'?

Chicago is not DC, it's Chicago, and the CTA serves it very well.

[Dream Chaser]

Comparing Chicago to DC and Boston isn't right, because Chicago is way larger.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

...a bit unfair to be held to Washington DC's standard, as they are in the luxury seating on the federal gravy train.

This

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Dream Chaser

Comparing Chicago to DC and Boston isn't right, because Chicago is way larger.

Exactly. Boston also doesn't have any public transit service after 12:30 AM. Buses in Chicago are also much more useful than in other cities where heavy traffic can make them almost useless (particularly NYC and Boston). This is especially true as you get further from the loop. Buses like the Cicero or Western bus can get you places very quickly, even at rush hour.

[rparz]

Oh geez, sf proper is only like 40 sq miles and Chicago is 250.

I consider SF proper like Chicagos loop, south loop, gold coast, Lincoln park, near north and river west. So you have a $2 muni line covering just that area. Whoop de doo, now transfer for another couple bucks of you're in Logan or wicker.

Sf has Caltrain which is like the metra.
Bart is like our L.

Plus, SF has like 7 different public transit agencies, all fares separate, (bart, muni,vta, AC transit etc etc) no free transfers, while cta does them all. How many different light rail car agencies does one city need? Especially one this small?

[Dream Chaser]

Originally Posted by rparz

Oh geez, sf proper is only like 40 sq miles and Chicago is 250.
Plus, SF has like 7 different public transit agencies, all fares separate, (bart, muni,vta, AC transit etc etc) no free transfers, while cta does them all.

Right, Chicago is actually 235 square miles. Chicago is way bigger than DC,SF and Boston. DC is only 70 square miles and Boston is less than that.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Attrill

Exactly. Boston also doesn't have any public transit service after 12:30 AM. Buses in Chicago are also much more useful than in other cities where heavy traffic can make them almost useless (particularly NYC and Boston). This is especially true as you get further from the loop. Buses like the Cicero or Western bus can get you places very quickly, even at rush hour.

"Very quickly" is a stretch, particularly at rush hour. Still, the bus system is comprehensive and very user-friendly.

[rparz]

Originally Posted by Drover

"Very quickly" is a stretch, particularly at rush hour. Still, the bus system is comprehensive and very user-friendly.

Unless you have a helicopter, there's not much of a faster way anyway.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by rparz

Unless you have a helicopter, there's not much of a faster way anyway.

Car?