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.
Chicago doesn't even have 10% of the development potential of the DC metro system. Chicago's system is in the city and the area around station's is already built up. Metro still has station's (not for much longer) that have forest around them. There isn't a system in the nation with even 50% of the housing units being built around DC's metro system currently. DC is expected to add 800,000 people in ridership over the next 20 years. That will put DC's ridership close to 2 million daily riders. This debate really isn't close.
rides, not riders, cut that in half Even said that would seem to be pretty taxing for a system already with pretty compressed usage.
The Metro is really a fantastic system. It had many benefits over other cities based on the technology available and development style/time all uniform etc.
Places like NYC, Chicago, Philly, Boston had to fit systemts run by multiple operators and multiple configurations, aspects that are not as scalable, also the Metro is a hybrid and the older RR lines are not as fit for TOD with headways typically etc.. Plus most were developed earlier than DC which as a place is newer. So better planning and timing has benefitted DC (especially in the non city portions of the transit system).
Not all places have a sort of socialist funnel to make things as they are in DC, I wish for better transit in many cities but they cant be afforded
Chicago doesn't even have 10% of the development potential of the DC metro system. Chicago's system is in the city and the area around station's is already built up. Metro still has station's (not for much longer) that have forest around them. There isn't a system in the nation with even 50% of the housing units being built around DC's metro system currently. DC is expected to add 800,000 people in ridership over the next 20 years. That will put DC's ridership close to 2 million daily riders. Almost all of that additional ridership is going to come from new housing units around the station's. Also, DC is centralizing almost all employment along it's metro system. Chicago isn't in the same league as DC in regional urban planning and transit/job centralizing. This debate really isn't close. That's the reason Chicago's ridership is so low now to begin with. Chicago is going to have to go back to placing jobs along the El' if it wants to keep up.
Have you ever stepped foot in the city or have any idea what you're really talking about as far as Chicago? You need to step back and breath a little. I love DC and I really love the Metro, but you're getting quite carried away with yourself here.
The Brown Line as a whole runs through the most established/built and stable areas of the city and has added 45,000 riders in just the past 4 years - and technically there's no "room for development". It's also only the 3rd most used line. The red/green/pink/blue lines are the lines that have the most room for development and improvement, and when/if it hits there's a ton of room for development.
I'm not saying one system is better or one will "beat" the other or one will devour the other in 20 years or anything either. It doesn't come off well when you try to boost DC's system as much as possible by constantly scathing Chicago's as "this debate isn't even close" "Chicago doesn't have 10% of the development potential" "it's apples to oranges" "the technology is night and day".
The systems aren't that far apart....they're quite comparable (which is why they're always being compared). You can stop with this belittling like we're trying to compare Reading, PA to London, UK. It's a debate and a conversation, not a flame war.
Last edited by Chicago60614; 11-13-2012 at 09:50 PM..
Everything requires repairs and upgrades over time
The DC Metro is actually starting to show its age more. The new cars will be an improvement
In 50 years I am sure things will need to be fixed/repaired and the Metro also has above ground stations, actually many
There are a couple different factors at play though. Chicago's weather has more to do with the wear and tear I am referring too. Also, the stations in DC are mainly underground. A few on the outskirts are above ground but most are below even in the suburbs. Many stations in the suburbs are below grade level too.
Have you ever stepped foot in the city or have any idea what you're really talking about as far as Chicago? You need to step back and breath a little. I love DC and I really love the Metro, but you're getting quite carried away with yourself here.
The Brown Line as a whole runs through the most established/built and stable areas of the city and has added 45,000 riders in just the past 4 years - and technically there's no "room for development". It's also only the 3rd most used line. The red/green/pink/blue lines are the lines that have the most room for development and improvement, and when/if it hits there's a ton of room for development.
I'm not saying one system is better or one will "beat" the other or one will devour the other in 20 years or anything either. It doesn't come off well when you try to boost DC's system as much as possible by constantly scathing Chicago's as "this debate isn't even close" "Chicago doesn't have 10% of the development potential" "it's apples to oranges" "the technology is night and day".
The systems aren't that far apart....they're quite comparable (which is why they're always being compared). You can stop with this belittling like we're trying to compare Reading, PA to London, UK. It's a debate and a conversation, not a flame war.
Good post. he is acting as if there is no competition for dc when it is actually a pretty close race. chicago is also trying to draw up more plans that will futher extend their bus and rail numbers too. Dc isnt the only city that is improving public transportation. Even LA is trying to lauch massive rail lines throught the city......
Have you ever stepped foot in the city or have any idea what you're really talking about as far as Chicago? You need to step back and breath a little. I love DC and I really love the Metro, but you're getting quite carried away with yourself here.
The Brown Line as a whole runs through the most established/built and stable areas of the city and has added 45,000 riders in just the past 4 years - and technically there's no "room for development". It's also only the 3rd most used line. The red/green/pink/blue lines are the lines that have the most room for development and improvement, and when/if it hits there's a ton of room for development.
I'm not saying one system is better or one will "beat" the other or one will devour the other in 20 years or anything either. It doesn't come off well when you try to boost DC's system as much as possible by constantly scathing Chicago's as "this debate isn't even close" "Chicago doesn't have 10% of the development potential" "it's apples to oranges" "the technology is night and day".
The systems aren't that far apart....they're quite comparable (which is why they're always being compared). You can stop with this belittling like we're trying to compare Reading, PA to London, UK. It's a debate and a conversation, not a flame war.
My intention was not to put down Chicago's EL'; I was just talking about the potential of both systems based on development. Chicago has a much steeper hill to climb with gentrification ridership versus grass field development ridership. Honestly though, I believe the biggest difference between the potential of both systems is where jobs are locating. The DC region really focuses jobs along metro lines even in the suburbs. This is the main reason DC's metro system has such high ridership. The reverse commuting potential for the Metro system will fuel substantial growth also. This is one of the major differences between the two systems. You have to put the jobs in the suburbs along your mass transit lines as much as possible. This is obviously an advantage the Metro stumbled upon without planning for it with the combination of suburbanization and Metro reaching way out into the suburbs.
My intention was not to put down Chicago's EL'; I was just talking about the potential of both systems based on development. Chicago has a much steeper hill to climb with gentrification ridership versus grass field development ridership. Honestly though, I believe the biggest difference between the potential of both systems is where jobs are locating. The DC region really focuses jobs along metro lines even in the suburbs. This is the main reason DC's metro system has such high ridership. The reverse commuting potential for the Metro system will fuel substantial growth also. This is one of the major differences between the two systems. You have to put the jobs in the suburbs along your mass transit lines as much as possible. This is obviously an advantage the Metro stumbled upon without planning for it with the combination of suburbanization and Metro reaching way out into the suburbs.
DC suburbs definitely have done a better job with TOD in the suburbs and out to suburban job centers, in some ways the Metro and EL function differently. taking a look at a map of the EL will tell you that it revolves around the Loop, which happens to be the second largest employment hub in the country. Where Chicago has an advantage over many other cities, is the vast amount of land ripe for development on the south and west side. It isn't going to happen overnight, but as the trend to move from suburbs to city continue, those areas will see a comeback, and most if not all of the development will be along existing transit lines.
DC suburbs definitely have done a better job with TOD in the suburbs and out to suburban job centers, in some ways the Metro and EL function differently. taking a look at a map of the EL will tell you that it revolves around the Loop, which happens to be the second largest employment hub in the country. Where Chicago has an advantage over many other cities, is the vast amount of land ripe for development on the south and west side. It isn't going to happen overnight, but as the trend to move from suburbs to city continue, those areas will see a comeback, and most if not all of the development will be along existing transit lines.
I agree there is a ton of potential there for development, however, I would wager the same issues exist in Chicago as in DC and other cities around the nation with a reluctance of businesses to locate in predominetly minority population areas. Also, from a residential standpoint, the south side isn't going to see development anytime soon. Do you see any signs of mass redevelopment coming to the south side of Chicago? I personally believe it will be a long time before the demand for redevelopment reaches that side of Chicago. Now, one major change that will drive ridership changes in DC has really nothing to do with the city proper. Tyson's Corner getting metro stations along with major redevelopment and substantial tolls for all highway movement in that area coming from Loudon county is going to be a major boost for transit in that corridor.
I agree there is a ton of potential there for development, however, I would wager the same issues exist in Chicago as in DC and other cities around the nation with a reluctance of businesses to locate in predominetly minority population areas. Also, from a residential standpoint, the south side isn't going to see development anytime soon. Do you see any signs of mass redevelopment coming to the south side of Chicago? I personally believe it will be a long time before the demand for redevelopment reaches that side of Chicago. Now, one major change that will drive ridership changes in DC has really nothing to do with the city proper. Tyson's Corner getting metro stations along with major redevelopment and substantial tolls for all highway movement in that area coming from Loudon county is going to be a major boost for transit in that corridor.
Well the majority of the development on the southside is closest to the loop, the south loop has seen a ton of development over the past decade, and develpment is starting to push out to Bridgeport and neighborhoods close to the lake (Hyde Park, Kenmore, Bronzeville). It is a work in progress, but there is a demographic shift going on in Chicago - Poor minorities are leaving the city, being replaced by wealthier (mostly whites, but still some minorities) people. Much of the infrastructure is already in place in these areas, and is even now, significantly more densely populated than Tysons or Loudon County.
Keep in mind that Chicago limits are quite a bit larger than DC, so things that are happening outside of DC proper may happen within the city of Chicago (though Tysons is too far out to be within Chicago limits).
Obviously this will not happen overnight, but like DC I believe the best days are ahead for Chicago as a whole.
Keep in mind The south side of Chicago is probably about the size of DC as a whole, it really is only a handful of neighborhoods that give the entire side of the city a bad name. Though it is noted that transit ridership is much lower, but i believe that is because less people, on average, work in the loop on the south side, so there is less need to ride the EL; but as the demographics shift I think that will change.
Well the majority of the development on the southside is closest to the loop, the south loop has seen a ton of development over the past decade, and develpment is starting to push out to Bridgeport and neighborhoods close to the lake (Hyde Park, Kenmore, Bronzeville). It is a work in progress, but there is a demographic shift going on in Chicago - Poor minorities are leaving the city, being replaced by wealthier (mostly whites, but still some minorities) people. Much of the infrastructure is already in place in these areas, and is even now, significantly more densely populated than Tysons or Loudon County.
Keep in mind that Chicago limits are quite a bit larger than DC, so things that are happening outside of DC proper may happen within the city of Chicago (though Tysons is too far out to be within Chicago limits).
Obviously this will not happen overnight, but like DC I believe the best days are ahead for Chicago as a whole.
Keep in mind The south side of Chicago is probably about the size of DC as a whole, it really is only a handful of neighborhoods that give the entire side of the city a bad name. Though it is noted that transit ridership is much lower, but i believe that is because less people, on average, work in the loop on the south side, so there is less need to ride the EL; but as the demographics shift I think that will change.
Chicago is still losing population even with development isn't it?
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.
. chicago is also trying to draw up more plans that will futher extend their bus and rail numbers too. Dc isnt the only city that is improving public transportation. Even LA is trying to lauch massive rail lines throught the city......
