News   Jul 15, 2024
Resubmitted Agincourt Condo Proposal Bumps Height, Reduces Parking
 38     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 498     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Twilight Glow
 600     1 

Chicago Tribune compliments Toronto's transit system -- thoughts?

Don't dismiss Chicago. They do a lot of things right. And, they move a lot of people on a smaller taxpayer expenditure.

- Paul
 
On the barest of levels for transit fans, I think subway/metro coverage is what everything boils down to in the "who's better" category. And although we have the greatest light rail/streetcar system in the Americas (one expected to grow much larger with new LRT lines), these unfortunately wouldn't fall into the conventional subway/metro category. Still, it's a feat we should be proud of.

This quote is one my takeaways from the article: [TTC's rail system is smaller — with four lines and 69 stations compared with the CTA's eight lines and 145 stations]. Add to this the length between the two: 165.4km vs 68.3km+8.6km(TYSSE), and it's clear Toronto has a lot of catching up to do in the subway/metro department. Only about 11% of Chicago's system is underground, and their most recent line (Orange) is 100% open-air/elevated. Perhaps we can take a cue from them?

chicago-vs-toronto-subway-metro-coverage.png
 

Attachments

  • chicago-vs-toronto-subway-metro-coverage.png
    chicago-vs-toronto-subway-metro-coverage.png
    27.3 KB · Views: 2,349
44 North said:
On the barest of levels for transit fans, I think subway/metro coverage is what everything boils down to in the "who's better" category. And although we have the greatest light rail/streetcar system in the Americas (one expected to grow much larger with new LRT lines), these unfortunately wouldn't fall into the conventional subway/metro category. Still, it's a feat we should be proud of.

This quote is one my takeaways from the article: [TTC's rail system is smaller — with four lines and 69 stations compared with the CTA's eight lines and 145 stations]. Add to this the length between the two: 165.4km vs 68.3km+8.6km(TYSSE), and it's clear Toronto has a lot of catching up to do in the subway/metro department. Only about 11% of Chicago's system is underground, and their most recent line (Orange) is 100% open-air/elevated. Perhaps we can take a cue from them?

View attachment 79885
Click to expand...

The CTA may be a longer system overall, but I wouldn't let that be the main factor in determining which system is better. Remember, most of the CTA's system was built well before Toronto's. Personally, the TTC does many things better than the CTA including:

1) Far more extensive bus route coverage and service
2) Lower headways between subway trains (3-5 mins) vs. (6-10 mins for CTA)
3) Cleaner and more decorative stations (Most Torontonians take the TTC's relative cleanliness for granted)
4) Wider and more spacious subway cars
5) Better customer service (hard to imagine, I know)

From my experience riding the system, it seems the CTA has stagnated within Chicago proper whereas their commuter train service Metra has continually expanded and serviced the burgeoning Chicagoland suburbs. If anything, Metra beats out GO Transit and represents what GO/Metrolinx strives to become on the commuter rail front whereas the TTC beats out the CTA and perhaps represents what the CTA wishes to become.

From what I've experienced, I also believe the CTA - Metra comparison also highlights the unfortunate racial divisiveness that exists within the Chicago area along racial and class lines.
 
I liked Chicago's transit system. But the best one i have seen is Washington DC. That should be the reference point for all.
 
Translude15 said:
The CTA may be a longer system overall, but I wouldn't let that be the main factor in determining which system is better. Remember, most of the CTA's system was built well before Toronto's. Personally, the TTC does many things better than the CTA including:

1) Far more extensive bus route coverage and service
2) Lower headways between subway trains (3-5 mins) vs. (6-10 mins for CTA)
3) Cleaner and more decorative stations (Most Torontonians take the TTC's relative cleanliness for granted)
4) Wider and more spacious subway cars
5) Better customer service (hard to imagine, I know)

From my experience riding the system, it seems the CTA has stagnated within Chicago proper whereas their commuter train service Metra has continually expanded and serviced the burgeoning Chicagoland suburbs. If anything, Metra beats out GO Transit and represents what GO/Metrolinx strives to become on the commuter rail front whereas the TTC beats out the CTA and perhaps represents what the CTA wishes to become.

From what I've experienced, I also believe the CTA - Metra comparison also highlights the unfortunate racial divisiveness that exists within the Chicago area along racial and class lines.
Click to expand...

For sure. I've never actually been to Chi-town, but I also don't have much desire to. I have no doubt the TTC is 'better' with the points you mention. I've never really had much problem with our cleanliness, station quality, or service (though have had my moments of outrage). And although I support elevated solutions at times, I wouldn't want anything like Chicago's (or NYC's) hulking, rusty, 30s-era ELs above any of our streets. Thankfully the technology has advanced that no cities build this way anymore.

Seems what you describe is the case in a lot of US cities with subway systems (e.g Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC, Atlanta). They might have numerous lines converging downtown (something TO desperately needs), but at the same time service can be poor, infrequent, with grimy stations, etc. But I guess these things happen in many cities. London and Paris might have extensive systems, but they obviously have their problems too. I guess my point was more about the basic comparison point many fall back on: a city's subway/metro (and its system length, coverage, number of lines, etc).

With commuter rail I definitely believe several US regions have us beat. GO is great, but there's clearly lots of room for improvement/expansion.
 
APTA-2048 said:
You're joking right?
Click to expand...
No i am not joking. Washington's system, like Chicago, has coverage. It covers major attractions, has multiple lines, and gets you to your destination quickly through rapid transit (without having to rely on busses or other transfers). It has surface rail and underground but it runs on separate lines not on streets. Washington's line crosses multiple juridisdictons (even STATES) on a single fare.

Whereas in Toronto, the coverage is the biggest thing lacking. And, you have transfer and pay another fare just to cross municipalities (never mind provinces or states). You cant get by subway to the toronto Zoo, the ex, woodbine racetrack, canadas wonderlands, the aquatic centre, ..etc. In chicago, i was able to get from my hotel at Ohare airport to a TFC game in bridgeview in the same amount of time (maybe even less time) than it takes me to get from north york to BMO field. The distance coverred in chicago was massive compared to what i face here.

These are the things that count in my mind. Can i get there and can i get there in reasonable amount of time by public transit. Thats where Chicago, Washington, and even Montreal has us beat.
 
Last edited:
I noticed that while living in Chicago, despite great coverage in terms of how much of the city you can get to (as well as 24-hour service on a couple of lines), the locals sometimes seemed to not hold the subway as an especially high-status, desirable, or prestigious mode of transport, especially in areas seen as at risk of crime, and many stations seemed under-utilized and in disarray.

While in Toronto it's pretty much the opposite -- a lot of demand and desire and prestige related to the subway, despite lower coverage of the city, with far fewer destinations one can get to.
 
The whole Chicago system is gritty, but the EL is very well maintained and from my experience works well under crush conditions. The bare-bones approach contrasts with, say, the new TYSSE stations....but it is reliable. the socio-economic divide is evident on the buses.

On our last visit, I asked to buy a rail ticket (to the restored Pullman village) and the ticket vendor asked "Are you sure? It's not very safe down there....make sure you don't get off at the wrong station". So much for tourism.

- Paul
 
I hate when people say one subway system is better than another by looking at lines on maps rather than going to these cities and experiencing these systems. A lot of people do this with Boston and Chicago, while I think the TTC is much better than these cities' systems from experience riding them.
 
LNahid2000 said:
I hate when people say one subway system is better than another by looking at lines on maps rather than going to these cities and experiencing these systems.
Click to expand...
I just re read the posts in this thread and i am not sure that i see that here. Speaking for myself, the ones i commented on, are the ones i have experienced in person.
 
Burnt creek said:
I just re read the posts in this thread and i am not sure that i see that here. Speaking for myself, the ones i commented on, are the ones i have experienced in person.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you've used Washington's system? Based on the below comment, I'm not so sure.
Burnt creek said:
Washington's line crosses multiple juridisdictons (even STATES) on a single fare.
Click to expand...
WMATA has zoned fares like GO Transit. There's no such thing as a "single fare" on WMATA.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top