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.
Really? NYC subway covers around 2-3 times the population of the CTA L, yet has 12 times the ridership. You don't think 5-6 times the per capita ridership is a notable difference?
I would guess that on all those metrics, NYC is considerably better. On most of these metrics, so much so that they aren't good comparisons.
NYC has 500 heavy rail stations, mostly four-track local-express operating, mostly underground/grade separated, better integrated with suburban rail and other forms of transit, and just generally a more monumental system. You have individual transit terminals, that are really only comparable to the biggest and grandest transit hubs on earth.
Chicago is very good for North American standards but in a different class and generally very similar to the systems in DC, Boston, Philly, and SF, especially in obvious metrics like size, ridership, and transit orientation. You can throw in the Montreal and Toronto systems too. NYC is more comparable to the huge networks in London, Paris and Tokyo.
I would generally agree with your sentiments above but for the last paragraph. Chicago CTA rail is *easily* a full notch above all the other US systems you mention. DC would be closest, but its system is not as expansive as the CTA.
No, NYC has more like 12 times the ridership of Chicago.
Does it change my answer that NYC > Chicago on rapid transit? No, actually I've stated it three times before. Okay, so we disagree that ridership is the end all be all over how good a system is. There's many reasons why a person can ride a system, and not all of them are great. I know people in Chicago, NYC, and DC who all ride the train and hate it, but they do it because it's the most convenient thing. That doesn't mean they think it's absolutely amazing. At the end of the day in MY opinion, the most important aspect to a public transit system is coverage. If I have a big set of point A->B routes, which system has the largest odds of actually getting me the closest to it and will be on time and not so dirty that I'm disgusted? For most actual good systems, on time percentage and cleanliness are marginal differences at best, especially if you threw DC out of the picture. There's not a HUGE difference in things like on-time percentage, cleanliness.
What pulls NYC far ahead of DC and Chicago is the fact that I can pick way more point A->B points in the city and get there than in Chicago and DC. There's far more areas it enables people to live a car free lifestyle in. For that reason alone, the system is better. There's a lot more to transit than how many people ride on it. One of the points of transit, yes, is to get ridership, but that's not the only point of it and while you could say that the two are related, it's not necessarily the case. However, in the case of NYC it is, but a reason many people ride it is because it's so huge and far reaching.
Also, because you are so caught up on ridership, does that mean that the Guangzhou Metro is better than the MTA (I'm not talking about PATH)? Their ridership is slightly more than MTA on average. Same as Moscow Metro which averages a fair amount more than MTA (and in 2012 had WAY more than MTA).
Last edited by marothisu; 02-13-2014 at 11:11 PM..
As a tourist I enjoyed taking the El more. I like how it's above ground so you can see the city and it seems a lot cleaner. The subway stations in NYC are dirty and during summer stuffy as hell.
As a tourist I enjoyed taking the El more. I like how it's above ground so you can see the city and it seems a lot cleaner. The subway stations in NYC are dirty and during summer stuffy as hell.
If you get outside of Manhattan, a lot of the MTA is actually above ground too. 156 miles of track to be exact, which is actually more than the entire Chicago system. I understand what you're saying though - as a tourist you were probably only in Manhattan so you were underground (which Chicago has a small subway system as well and you aren't guaranteed to see above ground things either).
If you get outside of Manhattan, a lot of the MTA is actually above ground too. 156 miles of track to be exact, which is actually more than the entire Chicago system. I understand what you're saying though - as a tourist you were probably only in Manhattan so you were underground (which Chicago has a small subway system as well and you aren't guaranteed to see above ground things either).
We went to the Bronx and Brooklyn too and did see above ground portions. Just seems like the El offers better views of the city overall than MTA does and it stays above ground in the central part of Chicago which is nice. I just thought it was a nicer system to experience overall.
As a tourist I enjoyed taking the El more. I like how it's above ground so you can see the city and it seems a lot cleaner. The subway stations in NYC are dirty and during summer stuffy as hell.
Because most of NYC subways are elevated outside the city. Also thank god that New York City got rid of ots elevated platforms in the city.
As a Chicagoan, I'd say MTA because it's more expansive and it's not dirty enough to turn me away. The train system is pretty expansive in Chicago, but where New York definitely wins is for the fact that not every line has a convergence point like in Chicago. In Chicago, if you are in Lakeview and want to get to Logan Square, for example, just by train, then you have to go all the way down to the Loop, then back to Logan Square on another line even though they're only 2 miles apart. In a NYC equivalent, you'd just ride across. For that reason alone, NYC wins.
Yes, but the same goes to travel from Bronx to Brooklyn or Staten Island you have to go through manhatten first. Plus non of the trains go directly into both airport which you have take the bus, cab or pay and wait again for the airport train. I believe it's the express train service and then the 24/7 makes the system better.
Technically, if Chicago wanted CTA to be equivalent to the size of MTA in track length it still has far more miles of track than any city in the country that could convert a lot of freight lines to be used as passenger but it would not be feasible because it has less population and more people drive today. In the 1930's, Chicago was once the nation's largest hub in terms of over all passenger rail. However, NYC has that title today as many of Chicago's tracks have been converted to freight usage since the last century. Right now Chicago has more miles of track length leading as the hub for freight traffic while NYC leads the nation in passenger traffic. CTA is smaller than MTA as it stands. Keep in mind a lot of Chicago's existing rail lines are still active primarily used for freight though but when combined with passenger it is still the largest rail network hub of the nation due to having more miles of rail length.
In terms of rail length and traffic hub volume in the country, today.
Freight line usage - Chicago
Passenger line usage - NYC (including rapid transit)
Chicago when it was at it's highest passenger volume peak when most people in the country who rode trains had to go through the city.
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.
