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.
Because if you're going from one end of the line to the other, the circuitousness of the route only hurts you. A good transit line is relatively straight. And the comparison to Toronto Y-U-S line is silly. The Y-U-S line is basically two lines combined into one. It is not designed to be travelled from one end to the other. It is designed to be travelled on EITHER the Yonge segment, OR the University-Spadina segment. If you want to go "across" (east-west), you take a bus or streetcar. Every station is at an east-west bus or streetcar route. Though there are plans to extend the Sheppard subway west to Downsview - so there will eventually be a subway line connecting Yonge-Sheppard station to Downsview station.
The G line SHOULD only be 8-9 miles long. If one is driving the length of the line, they would only need drive 8.4 miles. That's the actual distance being travelled from end-to-end. The line is about 35-40% longer than it would be were it a relatively straight, efficient line.
Evidently you do. Because you keep whining to me that it's wrong. Take it up with the people who created the chart.
It would only have half the capacity that way. People would only be able to travel north on Yonge, instead of north on Yonge or University. Is that not obvious from looking at a map of the line?
University is lined with large office towers. It needs it's own north-south line. Were it much wider, the western end of the "U" would not effectively serve the tower of University Avenue.
I thought you'd been to Toronto. This stuff I'm telling you is obvious to anyone who has. I really should be getting paid for all of this education I'm providing you.
This is kind of odd. You chose a ridiculous criteria for how fast a subway is, but didn't seem to understand that it would leave Toronto looking far worse (4.7 miles per hour versus 13 miles per hour). Well, at least it was funny.
Now you're excusing Toronto's route because "The Y-U-S line is basically two lines combined into one. It is not designed to be travelled from one end to the other." That's fine.
Did you know that's the same thing with the G train line? Not only did I explain it to you (one portion's a feeder from both sides to downtown Brooklyn and the transfer stations there to lower Manhattan, the other's a feeder to Long Island City and the transfers to midtown), but you can also actually look it up and see that the G train is two service patterns divided in the segments I told you. Now, we tried applying your criteria to both Toronto and the G train and that didn't work out so well. Then you had a special exception for Toronto which is exactly the case for the G train. Do you get another special exception there?
Uh, so you don't believe the actual agency running the trains and making the schedule actually have the schedule? Are you sure you couldn't be smarter about that? Maybe think of other reasons why the original graphic was wrong? (I can give you a hint. I had mentioned it early on).
Yea, people would only travel north on Yonge--I get it. I'm wondering why they didn't run the other leg of it up Spadina which seems pretty optimal especially if there are east-west trolley/tram lines. I thought that was weird when I was in Toronto. I still think it's weird. It makes me think maybe they had planned to run or build it some other way originally.
^Good post. But maybe some like waiting 2 hours for commuter rail? Not me, I prefer the 30 min wait.
This is incorrect. Toronto has always been growing. There was never a population lost like Chicago had if you look at Toronto's population history. Its just that now there growth is even more than it was in the previous decades and is "out there" in the news and all that.
Again, you are excluding the TTC bus network which has more reach in Toronto than the one in Chicago does. Then when you add the streetcars that will double capacity by 2018, the surface transit system (bus/streetcars) in Toronto excels even more compared to Chicago's bus network. Chicago has a bigger rail network but Toronto excels in various other categories.
FOR CHICAGO:
-More train lines and stations.
-Cheaper fares.
FOR TORONTO:
-Safety (I don't think we need to explain safety in Chicago vs Toronto)
-Larger bus network + streetcars (already stated in various posts)
-Available public washrooms (Chicago has zero in the entire, larger El system)
-Headway between trains and buses during peak periods
-Headway between off peak periods.
-Headway during overnight service.
-Overall night service (Chi: 2 lines every 15 minutes + 17 bus routes.... Tor: 24 bus routes... one as frequent as every 3 mins)
-Higher ridership (this promotes more service, construction projects, expansion, etc)
-Connectivity
When you add it all up, you can make an argument for Toronto having overall better service.
Actually, the post about Chicago growing most rapidly in the era of the train is correct. When you look at each cities populations in the the decades at the turn of the 20th century and also in the years between the world wars, Chicago was one one of the largest cities in the world (roughly the 5th biggest city in the world around 1900).
Toronto at the turn of the century was only around 240,000. Even by the 1930's, it was in the 800,000s.
Meanwhile, Chicago at the turn of the century was 1.7 million. By the 1930's, it was at 3.3 million.
To meet this burgeoning population, it's pretty clear that Chicago would have been developing an extensive rail infrastructure to accommodate so many millions of people. Mind you we are talking about a time frame before the advent of large scale suburbia (mid 1940's to the present).
TO did not reach 1 million until the car-centric post war decades and as Fusion2 described it, "TO hasn't looked back since."
So I think the point was that TO's rail network is playing "catch up" right now with Chicago's. However, I feel that Chicago might be resting on the laurels of it's past because I don't hear much about The Windy City expanding it's lines. Meanwhile, TO seems aggressive and competitive, eager to catch up and surpass her rival to the west. Which seems like it's on track to do.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,278,040 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by sf_arkitect
Actually, the post about Chicago growing most rapidly in the era of the train is correct. When you look at each cities populations in the the decades at the turn of the 20th century and also in the years between the world wars, Chicago was one one of the largest cities in the world (roughly the 5th biggest city in the world around 1900).
Toronto at the turn of the century was only around 240,000. Even by the 1930's, it was in the 800,000s.
Meanwhile, Chicago at the turn of the century was 1.7 million. By the 1930's, it was at 3.3 million.
To meet this burgeoning population, it's pretty clear that Chicago would have been developing an extensive rail infrastructure to accommodate so many millions of people. Mind you we are talking about a time frame before the advent of large scale suburbia (mid 1940's to the present).
TO did not reach 1 million until the car-centric post war decades and as Fusion2 described it, "TO hasn't looked back since."
So I think the point was that TO's rail network is playing "catch up" right now with Chicago's. However, I feel that Chicago might be resting on the laurels of it's past because I don't hear much about The Windy City expanding it's lines. Meanwhile, TO seems aggressive and competitive, eager to catch up and surpass her rival to the west. Which seems like it's on track to do.
YES.... Also Canadian cities... also did not go through declines of the 60s 70s US cities. From Racial Strife, Changing neighborhoods by Racial make-up and declines in Downtowns and neighborhoods by White Flight. Also large movements to suburbia. Chicago surely had all of this and especially also, other Eastern and Midwestern cities. By the mid-80s Downtowns began revival and white flight ended and Latino influx began too.
Now Chicago's Downtown since added closing on 100,000 new residents today in the 5 mile downtown areas. But Black flight began with large drop on the South Side till 2010 of 2012 census showed overall population decline. But the new census is expected to show modest growth again. Some neighborhoods it is believed get vastly undercounted.
Now Northern American Cities also have losses to Sunbelt cities. To cities like.....Houston, Dallas to Phoenix. The Pacific Northwest also and Florida especially in the South up through the Carolina's.
Actually, the post about Chicago growing most rapidly in the era of the train is correct. When you look at each cities populations in the the decades at the turn of the 20th century and also in the years between the world wars, Chicago was one one of the largest cities in the world (roughly the 5th biggest city in the world around 1900).
Toronto at the turn of the century was only around 240,000. Even by the 1930's, it was in the 800,000s.
Meanwhile, Chicago at the turn of the century was 1.7 million. By the 1930's, it was at 3.3 million.
To meet this burgeoning population, it's pretty clear that Chicago would have been developing an extensive rail infrastructure to accommodate so many millions of people. Mind you we are talking about a time frame before the advent of large scale suburbia (mid 1940's to the present).
TO did not reach 1 million until the car-centric post war decades and as Fusion2 described it, "TO hasn't looked back since."
So I think the point was that TO's rail network is playing "catch up" right now with Chicago's. However, I feel that Chicago might be resting on the laurels of it's past because I don't hear much about The Windy City expanding it's lines. Meanwhile, TO seems aggressive and competitive, eager to catch up and surpass her rival to the west. Which seems like it's on track to do.
Good post! Just to your last part - we or at least I don't see other cities as rival's - its just a matter of ok we've got over 100K people coming into our metro every year - what the heck do we do with them in terms of where they live and in terms of how we move people while preserving the greenbelt surrounding the city.. Its really that simple
Now Northern American Cities also have losses to Sunbelt cities. To cities like.....Houston, Dallas to Phoenix. The Pacific Northwest also and Florida especially in the South up through the Carolina's.
I wouldn't say Canadian cities have suffered losses to sunbelt cities like American cities... It isn't as easy as just saying well i'm going to move to Houston as a Canadian.. Its certainly more complicated moving from Toronto to Houston than Chicago to Houston. Toronto metro has been growing consistently by about 100K per year since the 70's - that's more than enough growth for it - but I get your point, in the U.S there are just so many more cities competing with one another - Canada there aren't that many large cities..
Good post! Just to your last part - we or at least I don't see other cities as rival's - its just a matter of ok we've got over 100K people coming into our metro every year - what the heck do we do with them in terms of where they live and in terms of how we move people while preserving the greenbelt surrounding the city.. Its really that simple
Yeah, It seems to me like Chicago has become stagnant in some respects.
CHI had this reputation throughout it's first century and a half of existence as the "can do" city. A place of great ambition. But since the beginning of the 21st century it's seems to me like the city is being left out of the "economic spotlight." International (and domestic) attention and flow of wealth/people is being diverted to Toronto and America's coastal metropolises.
That's just my impression anyways from reading one optimistic article after another about growth in the Bay Area, Houston, and Toronto. And not being able to find as many optimistic news articles about Chicago (other than the city nabbing the George Lucas Star Wars museum from SF hehe).
Not sure how Chicago is going to have to reinvent itself again, but it will need to if it wants to recapture the interest/investment of Americans (just as the Bay Area has done for the past 3-4 so years or so).
It's not too late for Chicago of course. The fortunes of our cities are in a constant state of change. All good and bad things come to an end and so I believe a good change of fortune will come to CHI sooner or later. Just not sure yet what macroeconomic forces will bring it about and when it will take place.
Yeah, It seems to me like Chicago has become stagnant in some respects.
CHI had this reputation throughout it's first century and a half of existence as the "can do" city. A place of great ambition. But since the beginning of the 21st century it's seems to me like the city is being left out of the "economic spotlight." International (and domestic) attention and flow of wealth/people is being diverted to Toronto and America's coastal metropolises.
That's just my impression anyways from reading one optimistic article after another about growth in the Bay Area, Houston, and Toronto. And not being able to find as many optimistic news articles about Chicago (other than the city nabbing the George Lucas Star Wars museum from SF hehe).
Not sure how Chicago is going to have to reinvent itself again, but it will need to if it wants to recapture the interest/investment of Americans (just as the Bay Area has done for the past 3-4 so years or so).
It's not too late for Chicago of course. The fortunes of our cities are in a constant state of change. All good and bad things come to an end and so I believe a good change of fortune will come to CHI sooner or later. Just not sure yet what macroeconomic forces will bring it about and when it will take place.
Well don't forget - Toronto really got a shot in the arm based on two things...
1) Separatist movement in Quebec pushed a lot of the anglo elite out of Montreal and into the arms of a welcoming Toronto back in the 60's and 70's
2) Canada changed its immigration policies mid 20th century and starting taking in hundreds of thousands per year. Toronto was the main benefactor of this and by far more than any other city in Canada took in the lions share of those immigrants
Now decades after, Toronto is the largest and most important city of a nation.. Chicago didn't have two major factors in its favour like Toronto did..
Don't try to drop that one their doorstep. You and your boys were asking for it with your centuries of British empire colonization and anti-French discrimination.
Wow - that sort of just came out of left field... So you deny that Toronto benefited from an influx of anglo movers and shakers from Montreal back in the 70's.. Whether me and my so called boys were so called asking for it or not - we did indeed get it!
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,278,040 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
I wouldn't say Canadian cities have suffered losses to sunbelt cities like American cities... It isn't as easy as just saying well i'm going to move to Houston as a Canadian.. Its certainly more complicated moving from Toronto to Houston than Chicago to Houston. Toronto metro has been growing consistently by about 100K per year since the 70's - that's more than enough growth for it - but I get your point, in the U.S there are just so many more cities competing with one another - Canada there aren't that many large cities..
Well a lot of movement from US Rustbelt cities did go to the suburbs. But Racial Change was Radical in the 60s 70s. I knew aspects of Chicago in the late 70s and then living there in the later 80s. All my White Relatives moved from Southside and North side neighborhoods for the final growth push of the cities Northwest side early 60s. Neighborhoods change Racially drastically in very short times. Downtown had declines State Street shopping declined. Adult stores moved in. Theaters began showing even their movies. Even NYC had these declines as Times Square became very shady before the city fought back. Some as Detroit never recovered, from severe white flight and loss of Manufacturing. Then the 80s began the Latino influx again change came in neighborhoods. But far less in declines.
So there was housing lost and part of the population drop.
It is great Toronto has had steady growth and paying off in stature and key city of Canada today.
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.
