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.
What do you mean by chicago is not sf? And what was I saying that you are disagreeing with?
You and the other guy presented a case about ridership and other conjecture, and case in point, SF has higher ridership # than Chicago, yet Chicago absolutely DESTROYS San Francisco in public transit, it isn't close whatsoever and is quite frankly laughable. And despite SF being more eco friendly, more ridership, more bikers to work, more people walking to work and general "pro green" , San Francisco is like a Fischer Price system compared to Chicago as a Railroad Monopoly. Chicago wins this with it's hands behind it's back vs Toronto. Thus why I find it funny you are making "possible scenarios" then including Chicago in that mix of cities with the "but but but". The analysis is just really off. Come on now, Toronto has 42 miles of subway track. Atlanta MARTA is bigger than that. You are comparing this to CTA/Metra systems? It's really silly. I mean don't you still use tokens in Toronto you have to buy at a drug store or something?
You and the other guy presented a case about ridership and other conjecture, and case in point, SF has higher ridership # than Chicago, yet Chicago absolutely DESTROYS San Francisco in public transit, it isn't close whatsoever and is quite frankly laughable. And despite SF being more eco friendly, more ridership, more bikers to work, more people walking to work and general "pro green" , San Francisco is like a Fischer Price system compared to Chicago as a Railroad Monopoly. Chicago wins this with it's hands behind it's back vs Toronto. Thus why I find it funny you are making "possible scenarios" then including Chicago in that mix of cities with the "but but but". The analysis is just really off. Come on now, Toronto has 42 miles of subway track. Atlanta MARTA is bigger than that. You are comparing this to CTA/Metra systems? It's really silly. I mean don't you still use tokens in Toronto you have to buy at a drug store or something?
Sounds like you didn't read my post... I listed various things from cleanliness, to headways, to connectivity, overnight service, etc but you are focusing on just ridership and ignoring the reality.
By the way... Where is Atlantas commuter rail? I have yet to see such a thing there. Think about the reason why Marta is the length it is before you mention that one again.
If you know what public transit is then you know there is more to public transit to just the length of track which I already stated in my last post.... But again, I bet you didn't even read my last post.
Maybe waiting 15 minutes for trains might seem cool in the Chi (think winter time)... but the only time that happens in Toronto is when there is some sort of delay or service disruption.
Where do you get this idea of 15 minute trains in the first place.
Where do you get the idea that headways and connectivity or overnight service in Chicago are bad?
As i said, none of these things are bad ways you would describe Chicago.
-headways between trains/buses.
-overnight service.
-ease of use.
-transferring to other buses/train routes.
-connections (to landmarks, point of interests, schools, hospitals, stadiums, shopping, office buildings etc)
-comfort
-cleanliness
-ongoing construction projects/extensions/expansions
-etc.
Is Chicago's system really worse in any of these categories? I think the only issue Chicago might have is in terms of comfort to some level because Chicago simply has higher crime levels and a hoodrat element that's not really a factor in Toronto save for the mayor.
On that last point about ongoing construction, I'm wondering if any of the proposed to the Red and Purple line changes that were proposed a couple years ago. I read about them on the Straight Dope and it seemed like the proposal put up there made a lot more sense where the Purple Line would be an express the entire time while the Red Line would be local--as I recall, at the time it was the Purple Line as an express stop up until Belmont and then for some reason flipped with the Red Line from there to the Loop where the Purple Line made more stops than the Red Line did which seemed silly for an express.
Where do you get this idea of 15 minute trains in the first place.
Where do you get the idea that headways and connectivity or overnight service in Chicago are bad?
As i said, none of these things are bad ways you would describe Chicago.
Even some El routes have trains every 20 mins at times (which would be outrageous in Toronto for heavy rail, but reasonable for commuter rail). I won't post all the PDF's for the El lines but there are probably more routes that have 15 min intervals (or worse) at times. Again, think about waiting 15-20 mins regularly for a train in a Chicago winter at a certain time....
Whereas in Toronto, it's 2-3 minute intervals during rush hour, and 5 mins or less during non-rush hour times. This applies to all Toronto subway lines. All day, every day.
And I didn't say it's "bad" either and I wouldn't say Chicago has a bad transit system. One of my previous posts said both systems are good and even said Chicago might have the better public transit. But when you look at everything (again, not just how many stations, but everything from overnight service, to headways, to transferring, connectivity, safety, accessibility etc), then you can make an argument for Toronto being better overall.
In Toronto, every major transfer station (and some others too) have public restrooms that are open all day, everyday. Transit is about how the customer benefits from it. Having services available, parking, speed, efficiency, safety, ease of use, connectivity, etc. all count towards effective public transit. Not just having more miles of track/more stations.
Even some El routes have trains every 20 mins at times (which would be outrageous in Toronto for heavy rail, but reasonable for commuter rail). I won't post all the PDF's for the El lines but there are probably more routes that have 15 min intervals (or worse) at times. Again, think about waiting 15-20 mins regularly for a train in a Chicago winter at a certain time....
Whereas in Toronto, it's 2-3 minute intervals during rush hour, and 5 mins or less during non-rush hour times. This applies to all Toronto subway lines. All day, every day.
And I didn't say it's "bad" either and I wouldn't say Chicago has a bad transit system. One of my previous posts said both systems are good and even said Chicago might have the better public transit. But when you look at everything (again, not just how many stations, but everything from overnight service, to headways, to transferring, connectivity, safety, accessibility etc), then you can make an argument for Toronto being better overall.
In Toronto, every major transfer station (and some others too) have public restrooms that are open all day, everyday. Transit is about how the customer benefits from it. Having services available, parking, speed, efficiency, safety, ease of use, connectivity, etc. all count towards effective public transit. Not just having more miles of track/more stations.
Agree with you on the restroom thing though Chicago, somewhat like Toronto but on a much smaller scale, does have an underground city thing going on where there are connections and passageways to buildings that do have restrooms.
You're right on the 15 minutes headway or longer at some points, but it's not much of a dig on Chicago as I think there should be some context in this comparison of headways. One is that the most of the 15 minutes or worse headways occur during hours of operation where the Toronto Subway system does not operate at all. The Green Line's really bad times are at the tail ends of them because it's starting from two branches in the South Side for a total of four stations (two on each branch) before the two branches combine into a trunk. That would be four stations out of thirty. There are several stations, especially those in and closer to downtown or on the north side, that actually have more than one service inline serving them for some stops so for some riders that would essentially be a halving of headways.
The other lines you didn't post are Red, Brown, Purple, Pink, and Yellow. The first three are better in terms of headways (Red and Blue especially which combined have about as many stations and as much coverage as the entire Toronto Subway system; throw in the third busiest Brown Line and you've got a stew going), the Pink and Yellow (Yellow looks to be just a small stub/shuttle sort of thing) are about the same as the ones you posted.
It would be great for Chicago to run their trains more frequently though. I wonder if there's an operational bottleneck from having as many shared lines as it does. Anyone know? Can the system easily increase frequencies during rush hours without having to do anything in infrastructural changes?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-01-2013 at 01:13 AM..
Even some El routes have trains every 20 mins at times (which would be outrageous in Toronto for heavy rail, but reasonable for commuter rail). I won't post all the PDF's for the El lines but there are probably more routes that have 15 min intervals (or worse) at times. Again, think about waiting 15-20 mins regularly for a train in a Chicago winter at a certain time....
This is honestly like comparing apples and oranges. The TTC's subway does not service nearly as much as Toronto as the CTA's L lines do Chicago.
The CTA oversees eight L lines. It should also be noted that two lines run 24 hours, two primarily service the city but also extend to specific suburbs, one primarily services a specific suburb but also services the city during peak hours, and one leaves the city and takes you to a specific suburb.
The TTC, meanwhile, oversees four lines, none of which run 24 hours.
It makes financial sense that the CTA would run less used lines more infrequently than at peak times in order to operate longer. The TTC would probably be doing something similar if they ran a similar network.
Also, consider this; if the CTA L lines have less overall ridership than the TTC's subway, why would they be running their trains more frequently during off peak hours if there were far less people planning on riding them? I've honestly been on the redline, one of the 24 hour lines, in the middle of the night, and there have been times when I was literally the only person in my specific train car. The only time there's actually a significant amount of people waiting on the redline in the middle of the night is when last call occurs, and that only lasts a brief period of time.
Quote:
Whereas in Toronto, it's 2-3 minute intervals during rush hour, and 5 mins or less during non-rush hour times. This applies to all Toronto subway lines. All day, every day.
Except, you know, when they're not running.
According to the the TTC's website, the wait time for the TTC's overnight service is "30 minutes or better." Do you happen to have a link that lists the typically wait times for the replacement buses?
If not, the quote should be noted since you're comparing Toronto's smaller subway system to Chicago's at its slowest of times at off-peak hours, and since that overnight service is making up for the lack of running trains.
Quote:
And I didn't say it's "bad" either and I wouldn't say Chicago has a bad transit system. One of my previous posts said both systems are good and even said Chicago might have the better public transit. But when you look at everything (again, not just how many stations, but everything from overnight service, to headways, to transferring, connectivity, safety, accessibility etc), then you can make an argument for Toronto being better overall.
There have been a few times where I have wished that the CTA did have public restrooms, but overall I shudder at the thought of what they would look like and at what would be happening in them. That's also not just a Chicago thing, as the majority of public transit services in America have taken that same approach.
If that's not an issue in Toronto, then good for you guys, but considering the problems that America has, it's probably best that there aren't public restrooms.
Quote:
In Toronto, every major transfer station (and some others too) have public restrooms that are open all day, everyday. Transit is about how the customer benefits from it. Having services available, parking, speed, efficiency, safety, ease of use, connectivity, etc. all count towards effective public transit. Not just having more miles of track/more stations.
I guess you need to ask yourself whether greater coverage with slower times during off-peak hours (especially for the less used lines) is what you desire, or if you desire a more compact system that covers less area but is more timely when it's actually running.
Also Chicago's system does indeed have many of the benefits that you cover, in addition to greater coverage. The one primary exception is parking. Chances are if you have a car, and could afford parking in Chicago, you wouldn't want to drive it to a CTA L stop anyway. If the stop isn't necessarily quick walking distance from your location, then there's typically a nearby bus that will get you there. The point of the CTA is to navigate the city without a car being in the equation
PS: Chicago's L platforms have heat lamp stations. Chances are if you're riding the L at an off peak time, and did just miss your train, you're most likely not going to have an issue getting under said lamps.
Chicago wins this with it's hands behind it's back vs Toronto.
Wrong. But if you're going to argue Chicago has better public transit than Toronto, present that facts and statistics. You saying it doesn't make it true. Quite frankly it's absolutely laughable to say that a Metro with 11.5% transit share has better public transit than a Metro with 23.3% transit share. If Chicago's transit was better it's ridershp would be WAY, WAY higher. Like at least around 20%. Indeed, Chicago's ridership numbers are anemic, as I already showed. And you can fact check my numbers if you'd like.
Quote:
Thus why I find it funny you are making "possible scenarios" then including Chicago in that mix of cities with the "but but but". The analysis is just really off. Come on now, Toronto has 42 miles of subway track. Atlanta MARTA is bigger than that. You are comparing this to CTA/Metra systems? It's really silly. I mean don't you still use tokens in Toronto you have to buy at a drug store or something?
Tokens that you buy at a drug store? LOL. Who's the idiot who told you that? Some guy said that earlier in this thread, but he was obviously a lying troll. Nothing he said about Toronto's transit is true. No, you can't buy "tokens at a drug store". That majority of TTC riders use a montly Metropass.
And the fact that Chicago has more miles or heavy rail does not make it's transit system "better". There are four factors that determine the quality of a transit system:
1. coverage density
2. average speed
3. service frequency
4. hours of service
More miles of rail MIGHT lead to higher average speed. But it might not. If you have numbers proving Chicago's transit is faster on average than Toronto's, present them with a link. But simply having more miles of rail doesn't make the system better.
Chicago's transit has pathetic ridership numbers. Were it better than Toronto's, transit commute share would be north of 20% for the metro area, and north of 30% for the city. It's not even close. Chicago's infrequent "El" system at 114 miles is not better than Toronto's frequent subway system of 42 miles. Not even close. Mode of travel doesn't matter. Speed and service frequency does.
Maybe waiting 15 minutes for trains might seem cool in the Chi (think winter time)... but the only time that happens in Toronto is when there is some sort of delay or service disruption.
The funny thing is most of Chicago's heavy rail platforms are outside (even if they're covered), so people are literally waiting in the cold like you say
I'm so glad to live in a real city where subway headways are never more than 5 minutes on any part of any line at any time 365 days a year, barring a delay. I'd go nuts with Chicago's terrible, terrible service frequency. Can you imagine waiting outside in the freezing cold for more than 10 minutes in the middle of the winter? Crazy. I guess they're used to it down there though. LOL.
Where do you get this idea of 15 minute trains in the first place.
Where do you get the idea that headways and connectivity or overnight service in Chicago are bad?
As i said, none of these things are bad ways you would describe Chicago.
Looks like 15 minute headways to me boss. And don't make the excuse that that's late at night. Toronto's lines ALL run on 5 minute headways until they stop running around 2:30am. Yet Chicago's is only running every 15 minutes even at 1:30am. I feel for the people of Chicago. Waiting sucks.
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.
