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.
I didn't say New York is best BECAUSE it runs 24-hours, I said it edges out Montreal because it runs 24-hours AND because it gives better coverage.
But those few hours DO matter, because not all cities replace trains with buses. Like Boston and (I think) DC...Could be wrong about DC but definitely Boston. And it really hampers your ability to go out and party when you're worried about being stuck somewhere.
Yes, some 24/7 bus lines do take up the slack for Metro when it shuts down around midnight (Sundays to Thursdays) and 3:30am (Fridays & Saturdays).
The only station where the Red Line is making a 90º turn north of the Loop is Sheridan.
Actually, there are 2 90-degree turns, one immediately east of Sheridan and one immediately to its west. Trains are absurdly slow in these places. Also trains often have to wait for crossing trains at the Brown Line junction... Purple Line express trains share the Brown Line route (which btw was the original 1900 route of all north side trains into the Loop until the State Street subway was built during WWII). That route, south of Armitage, as a couple of sharp 90-degree turns where trains slow to about 10-15 mph. I love the view it's almost like an amusement park ride.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil
You're also missing the issue that stations, both above and below ground, simply cannot accommodate wider trains. They weren't designed for them, and also have the issue of train cars being literally right next to each other when the Brown, Purple, and Red Lines pass each other on their way to and from downtown. This same issue applies to the trains circling through the Loop.
That's the point I was making, because of the historical tight turns throughout the 100+ year-old elevated structures, CTA is limited to running the shorter, narrower cars, similar in dimension to the original cars of he 1890s. To accommodate larger Toronto, Cleveland (Red Line) or D.C. Metro size cars would require demolishing the Loop and many portions of the alley-els to "soften" the hard turns. Probably, in many/most portions the tracks would need to be spaced farther from one another... This would all be cost prohibitive so, it makes sense, to just keep running the shorter cars... Regardless of how this happened, it doesn't make things any easier for passengers to be jammed into these shorter/narrower cars.
. . .
On a personal note: I LOVE the L and ride it every time I visit the city; usually I stay with Near North friends, or stay downtown and am car-less, and have multi-day CTA passes. No American city has trains with an outdoor, 2nd-story view running through the heart of its downtown... If I lived in Chicago I would use L trains for my commuting if possible and certainly would us them to get into downtown, Wrigley, Chinatown, Belmont, Lincoln Park and elsewhere. It's really a great system and, as history buff, I find it absolutely fascinating. The fact that actual sections, like the Loop, the Green Line the Red and Brown Lines and a portion of the Blue Line, literally run over sections built in the 1890s and 1900 is amazing: it's a living museum piece that is highly functional and useful and is weirdly juxtaposed with modern portions running down the middle of freeways and serving both Chicago airports!!
To me, the L is far more interesting than riding the sanitized, space-age D.C. Metro, BART or MARTA... But I also recognize that most people are not transit geeks like I am... they just want to get places quickly and comfortably (with a strong emphasis on the latter). And to them old Rube-Goldberg elevated structures over streets and alleyways mean nothing or, at worst, are terrible eyesores, and waiting on narrow, (often) wooden platforms exposed to the elements is a pain in the ass ... just like riding those narrow/smallish rail cars. When it comes to transit to most people, esp the Millennials, new means good while old is, well, ... old/yuck.
Wow, looking at that NYC video...there's a stop every 30-40 seconds. That would be sooooo annoying. Even in Atlanta's core on the N/S line going through Downtown and Midtown, it still takes 1-2 minutes on average between stations and the speeds are about 40 miles per hour on average. The core of Atlanta from the southern end of downtown(Garnett Station) to the northern end of Midtown(Arts Center station) is about 3.5-4 miles.
Chicago's relatively low L ridership is due to a couple factors. One is Chicago's flat typography with wide, straight main roads.
But I think Chicago's bigger problem is the old, antiquated nature of much of the L. On the Red Line north, the busiest of all L lines, you have many 90-degree turns which necessitate the shorter (more cramped interior-wise) cars as well as slow speeds. This route also has way too closely spaced stations on the North side, in some cases every 2 or 3 blocks. Sure, that was great when the line was built in 1900 when the Horseless Carriages were owned by a few plucky inventors or rich hobbyists kept in their toolsheds. However, in the current auto era convenience, that won't do. It's true the Purple line runs rush hour expresses, but those expresses should run 7 days/week imho. And even when the Purple Line is running, the people using the majority interim stops have agonizingly slow rides into downtown -- One can easily beat Red Line trains by driving in on nearby Lake Shore Drive.
Then there are the several surface-level junctions and track-crossing sections like the famed busiest (train) intersection in the world over Lake & Wells or the one connecting the 2-track Brown Line with the 4-track Red Line at Belmont. And yes, people do not like those open air platforms battling the elements with little more than a few heat lamps in winter -- and I've seen many instances where the few heat lamp areas are crowded out by shivering commuters... Modern commuters don't go for this.
Then there are often the poor connections between lines. For example, if a (North) Red Line commuter wants to go the University of Illinois hospitals, she/he must take the Red Line to the Lake subway stop, walk upstairs and outside for a block then upstairs to the Pink Line L stop above Lake Street. Then there are those God-awful block-long tunnels Airport/Blue Line passengers must use to get to the busy Red Line... Here again, passengers used to cushier, temp-controlled faster systems like D.C.'s Metro, don't go for these late 19th/early 20th Century-type transit facilities, especially when you have to deal with Chicago's brutal, freezing winters.
So when you have this in an city with flat typography and wide avenues (and several freeways) along with lots of typical American-style suburban office/retail low-density sprawl coupled with an largely antiquated, albeit extensive, rapid transit system, it's not surprising why the rail system is less used than faster, more modern rapid systems.
Chicago's west and south side have undergone precipitous population losses over the past half century. The lines running through those parts of the city have likewise suffered huge ridership losses. Its really only the north side lines (Blue, Brown, and Red) which are anywhere near capacity. I doubt any part of Toronto has undergone a similar degree of depopulation, much less any areas with good train access.
Chicago's west and south side have undergone precipitous population losses over the past half century. The lines running through those parts of the city have likewise suffered huge ridership losses. Its really only the north side lines (Blue, Brown, and Red) which are anywhere near capacity. I doubt any part of Toronto has undergone a similar degree of depopulation, much less any areas with good train access.
Toronto's first subway was built in 1954. The good train access areas haven't gotten depopulation, they've gotten lots of infill. Lots of skyscrapers following the Yonge line.
Toronto's first subway was built in 1954. The good train access areas haven't gotten depopulation, they've gotten lots of infill. Lots of skyscrapers following the Yonge line.
Yep. Evidence of infill is just starting to creep westward and southward from the Loop along the Green line, but it will take decades of continuous growth to reach levels of population equal to the north side neighborhoods (as they once were 100 years ago).
Toronto's first subway was built in 1954. The good train access areas haven't gotten depopulation, they've gotten lots of infill. Lots of skyscrapers following the Yonge line.
Good point Nei - I can't think of any point along the subway lines in Toronto where depopulation has occured in Toronto. The Newest Sheppard line has actually spurred quite a bit of intense development along it actually..
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.
