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.
Depends on what one's definition of useful is.. Looks like they both have pros and cons imo. At the end of the day however, more people in Toronto use the system than counterparts in Chicago.
You can say that about every city in the US except for NYC. Toronto is pretty much 3rd in North America in overall transit ridership behind NYC and Mexico City. Also, ridership for public transit is not the end all be all of judging how often people use cars. There are other modes of transportation that are not automobiles that people use in their daily lives to get from point A to point B.
You can say that about every city in the US except for NYC. Toronto is pretty much 3rd in North America in overall transit ridership behind NYC and Mexico City. Also, ridership for public transit is not the end all be all of judging how often people use cars. There are other modes of transportation that are not automobiles that people use in their daily lives to get from point A to point B.
I didn't say ridership is the be all and end all but I would say high ridership numbers is a good indication that the systems works for many people. Others in here have contended that ridership is high in Toronto because many people can't afford car ownership yet the city has some of the busiest highways you can find anywhere.. I haven't personally knocked Chicago's system - I said in relation to Toronto it has its pros and cons and I think that statement is closer to the truth than one is miles better than the other.
You can say that about every city in the US except for NYC. Toronto is pretty much 3rd in North America in overall transit ridership behind NYC and Mexico City. Also, ridership for public transit is not the end all be all of judging how often people use cars. There are other modes of transportation that are not automobiles that people use in their daily lives to get from point A to point B.
You're right. Service frequency and average speed are much more important than ridership. But Toronto wins both of these areas handily. If Chicago can eliminate all the slow zones, the average speed will be about a draw.
I didn't say ridership is the be all and end all but I would say high ridership numbers is a good indication that the systems works for many people. Others in here have contended that ridership is high in Toronto because many people can't afford car ownership yet the city has some of the busiest highways you can find anywhere.. I haven't personally knocked Chicago's system - I said in relation to Toronto it has its pros and cons and I think that statement is closer to the truth than one is miles better than the other.
I also never said that you said that. I was making a general statement to anybody judging an entire city, how walkable it is, how the people get around, etc based on ridership numbers completely. There are other modes of transit besides public transit and car to get around, that's all.
Anyway, for the most part, I agree. There are a lot of other factors of course but it depends on the culture that the system is in and everything.
As far as freeways clogging up - there's other factors at play here and you could get a false positive in both cities. For example, in Chicago the Kennedy Expressway can be really, really bad with traffic at times. However, if you ride on the road enough, you'll realize there's a ton of freight shipping going on there. Chicago is a major distribution hub in the US and has been for a long time. It's also a major road that people will use to get between various other cities. Some of the other major interstates in Chicago are not like this though.I'm wondering if similar things can be said about Toronto?
You're right. Service frequency and average speed are much more important than ridership. But Toronto wins both of these areas handily. If Chicago can eliminate all the slow zones, the average speed will be about a draw.
I think coverage matters a lot. Service frequency and average speed only matter when the line is actually serving where you're at and going to. Chicago's coverage is much more extensive. A minor note would be service hours--certain lines in Chicago are 24 hours. It's nice though not that huge of a boon as at that point I generally just opt for a cab.
You're right. Service frequency and average speed are much more important than ridership. But Toronto wins both of these areas handily. If Chicago can eliminate all the slow zones, the average speed will be about a draw.
Here's a few of my comments.
1) I moved to Chicago a little over 5 years ago. I have been riding the train usually twice a day, or more, for almost all of those 5 years. The number of slow zones of 2009 compared to now is dramatically different. By that I mean there are many fewer today versus 5 years ago. The thing is also that to the person who doesn't ride everyday, the "slow zones" are not track slow zones. There are many, many times where there are workers doing track maintenance, which is where you get a slow zone sometimes especially Friday - Sunday. The number of times these days though that I actually am in a car while it's standing on the track now versus 5 years ago is WAY less.
2) The truly slow zones in the system are getting eliminated. The entire south branch track of the Red Line from Chinatown to 95th was replaced with new track in 2013. The ride both ways between downtown and 95th is now 10 minutes less. I ride to Chinatown a lot, and before this when you went south of Roosevelt right away it would get slow. Since October of last year when the Red Line replacement was finished, this is no longer true. It's smooth sailing.
Also, the blue line from O'Hare to downtown is undergoing a similar modernization (or will start soon) where the amount of time it will take to get from O'Hare to downtown will be 10 minutes less. They are also going to be doing this to the north branch of the Red Line in the next few years which includes flyovers for other lines that share the same stations such as the Purple and Brown Lines.
3) The CTA has been unveiling new, faster, and more efficient cars for the last few years. These are pretty prevalent now, though the system still has some cars from the 90s. In 2016, a multi billion dollar order of even newer cars will start delivery to the system.
4) Not that it completely matters, but many stations have either been remodeled in the last year or two or are starting to. There is also a new station being built that should be ready in the next small handful of months. There are also a few BRT lines that are set to open in the Loop and West Loop next year. Of course there's the 17 mile long Ashland BRT that has been on the boards for a few years, but that has more hoops to jump through because of NIMBYism in some areas.
I think coverage matters a lot. Service frequency and average speed only matter when the line is actually serving where you're at and going to. Chicago's coverage is much more extensive. A minor note would be service hours--certain lines in Chicago are 24 hours. It's nice though not that huge of a boon as at that point I generally just opt for a cab.
The Toronto subway may not be as extensive, but the TTC covers 100% of the city. Wherever you're going there's going to be some kind of transit service. It's the average speed of the entire trip that matters, not just the part of the trip that is on the train. And for the most part the bus routes run outside of the "inner city", where roads are wider and traffic is lighter, so even many of the bus routes have pretty high average speeds. Many TTC bus routes average around 13-15 MPH, just a few MPH lower than Chicago's L trains.
Chicago's L beat Toronto's subway in coverage. But the Toronto subway is better by pretty much every other metric.
The Toronto subway may not be as extensive, but the TTC covers 100% of the city. Wherever you're going there's going to be some kind of transit service. It's the average speed of the entire trip that matters, not just the part of the trip that is on the train. And for the most part the bus routes run outside of the "inner city", where roads are wider and traffic is lighter, so even many of the bus routes have pretty high average speeds. Many TTC bus routes average around 13-15 MPH, just a few MPH lower than Chicago's L trains.
Chicago's L beat Toronto's subway in coverage. But the Toronto subway is better by pretty much every other metric.
Yes, there are buses in other cities, too. I think I was referencing rapid transit specifically.
I also never said that you said that. I was making a general statement to anybody judging an entire city, how walkable it is, how the people get around, etc based on ridership numbers completely. There are other modes of transit besides public transit and car to get around, that's all.
Anyway, for the most part, I agree. There are a lot of other factors of course but it depends on the culture that the system is in and everything.
As far as freeways clogging up - there's other factors at play here and you could get a false positive in both cities. For example, in Chicago the Kennedy Expressway can be really, really bad with traffic at times. However, if you ride on the road enough, you'll realize there's a ton of freight shipping going on there. Chicago is a major distribution hub in the US and has been for a long time. It's also a major road that people will use to get between various other cities. Some of the other major interstates in Chicago are not like this though.I'm wondering if similar things can be said about Toronto?
Oh absolutely - the 401 is a major trucking artery.. I don't know how the two cities compare as distribution hubs but Ontario and more specifically the GTA is a major manufacturing hub. Much of the over billion dollars plus daily trade between Canada and the U.S flows through Toronto not to mention the goods that flow in/out domestically where Toronto is easily the largest urban economy in Canada.
The NYC subway and NY/NJ PATH system are the two slowest subway/metro systems in the United States, and likely the entire world, with average speeds of just 17.4 and 18.2 MPH respectively. It takes PATH for example, a scheduled 11 minutes to go from Christopher Street station to Hoboken Terminal, which couldn't be more than a mile or so as the crow flies.
The NYC subway actually has four lines listed (though one of them is no longer in service) that average under 15 MPH.
It actually lists the Chicago L as having an average speed of 22.9 MPH, but I'm guessing the schedules don't reflect the slow zones.
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.
