I was in chicago last spring with my family and were planning on useing the car, but we used transit the hole time. I was very impressed with the quickness of the trains.

^ man, if you were impressed by chicago's system, you need to visit a city with a real transit system like NYC or london. chicago's is a sad joke by comparison.

Whel I have sean nyc`s map and frankly it looks to confusing.
But you are hearing this from someone in minneapolis, look what we have.
Its a light rail (wy do smaller citys end up with light rail) line that goes good places but in downtown its still at grade. And my mom drove on the tracks once.

lol, drove on the tracks?

Yes, chicago's system is ok but definitly not up to par with others such as NYC. Constant construction and delays make the el a nightmare, and buses in genreal are unreliable. But what are you gonna do, gotta take it.

True it's not on par with NYC but it spoiled me to death when I was there. I came back home and started advocating better transit here as a result of seeing what you guys had.

Simply put: Chicago's system is good, but its not FREAKIN' FANTASTIC. "Good" ain't all that bad, though.

^ man, if you were impressed by chicago's system, you need to visit a city with a real transit system like NYC or london. chicago's is a sad joke by comparison.

Sad joke? I'm sorry, but I have a real problem with people slamming Chicago's transit system as if it is some sort of Third World transit option. Sure, NYC's system has longer hours, more trains, etc. but the city has 8 million freakin' people! Same deal with London. But these cities are so massive that mass transit is vital to the city's survival and is given much more importance than transit in Chicago. Comparing Chicago to these cities really isn't fair.

When looked at as a whole, what other transit systems in the US offer 24 hour train service? Which cities offer train service to TWO major metropolitan airports? Which cities allow you to travel 20 miles for $1.75? Look at all the other major US transit agencies: Boston, LA, Atlanta, San Fransisco, Washington, etc. None of them offer as much as the CTA does.

I'm not saying the CTA is perfect. The system could certainly be cleaner. The physical plant is in need of upgrading. The executive board needs a major shakeup. But on the whole, I don't think a lot of people living in Chicago realize what a sweetheart deal they have.

Sad joke? I'm sorry, but I have a real problem with people slamming Chicago's transit system as if it is some sort of Third World transit option. Sure, NYC's system has longer hours, more trains, etc. but the city has 8 million freakin' people! Same deal with London. But these cities are so massive that mass transit is vital to the city's survival and is given much more importance than transit in Chicago. Comparing Chicago to these cities really isn't fair.

When looked at as a whole, what other transit systems in the US offer 24 hour train service? Which cities offer train service to TWO major metropolitan airports? Which cities allow you to travel 20 miles for $1.75? Look at all the other major US transit agencies: Boston, LA, Atlanta, San Fransisco, Washington, etc. None of them offer as much as the CTA does.

I'm not saying the CTA is perfect. The system could certainly be cleaner. The physical plant is in need of upgrading. The executive board needs a major shakeup. But on the whole, I don't think a lot of people living in Chicago realize what a sweetheart deal they have.

Thank for an excellent post.

It looks like I'm on the same page as everyone else here. On the one hand, we should be happy we have something as good as the CTA, but on the other hand, we are entitled to a lot more than they're giving us.

Manhattan's physical layout is made for rapid transit far more than it is for automobiles. The island is long and narrow; expressways were never an option. Much of Manhattan's height and its density were dictated by its physical shape. New York, without the rivers and bay, could have remained our biggest city (assuming some port area remained), but it would be a vastly different city.

So a surprisingly few north-south transit lines can virtually serve the whole island that is narrow enough for most folks to be near a subway station. Afterwards, the lines spread into Bronx, Queens, and Broolyn with a spread not all that different from CTA.

Chicago does not have the broad rivers, so the intensity of lines covering a wide stretch of our city was never going to be the same as the Manhattan portion of the NYC transit system.

Our system has weaknesses. All city lines converge in the Loop while the two suburban ones in Evanston and Skokie join up with the Loop-bound Red. Certainly a by-pass line (in addition to the planned Circle) makes sense. And, like anything else, there is always room for improvement.

That said, I find it hard to look at the whole RTA system with CTA bus and ail, Metra, Pace, etc., as being an outstanding transit system. I also totally disagree with Steely; IMHO, this sytem is outstanding and something to be very proud of and grateful for.

Sad joke? I'm sorry, but I have a real problem with people slamming Chicago's transit system as if it is some sort of Third World transit option. Sure, NYC's system has longer hours, more trains, etc. but the city has 8 million freakin' people! Same deal with London. But these cities are so massive that mass transit is vital to the city's survival and is given much more importance than transit in Chicago. Comparing Chicago to these cities really isn't fair.

When looked at as a whole, what other transit systems in the US offer 24 hour train service? Which cities offer train service to TWO major metropolitan airports? Which cities allow you to travel 20 miles for $1.75? Look at all the other major US transit agencies: Boston, LA, Atlanta, San Fransisco, Washington, etc. None of them offer as much as the CTA does.

I'm not saying the CTA is perfect. The system could certainly be cleaner. The physical plant is in need of upgrading. The executive board needs a major shakeup. But on the whole, I don't think a lot of people living in Chicago realize what a sweetheart deal they have.

look, i ride the CTA every single day, and i have first hand experience dealing with the London and NYC transit systems. you can disagree with me all you want, but it will not change my belief that the CTA is a sad joke compared to these other two transit systems. hell, the CTA can't even stand up to a system like toronto's. the CTA might be pretty good compared to minneapolis or st. louis, or cleveland etc. but come on, aren't we setting the bar pretty damn low if that's who we're measuring ourselves against?

to someone from minneapolis, i suppose that the CTA could be perceived as "impressive", but in my eyes i just find it laughable. why is one of the greatest cities in the country, hell, even the world, saddled with such a second-rate, HORRENDOUSLY mismanaged, after thought, transit system?

oh well, i suppose there's an outside chance that the circle line might open up just in time for my retirement three and a half decades from now.

The CTA bus system is very adequate. But the rail system is grossly inadequate relative to the size of Chicago. There are huge swaths of the city that are prohibitively far from L lines. In addition, the L lines are not connected to each other. For example, I live in Lincoln Park. If I wanted to take the L to visit my friend who is 3 miles away in Wicker Park, I would have to take the Red Line south 3 miles to the Loop, transfer in the Loop, and then ride all the way out of the Loop northwest for another 3 miles. This lack of connectivity between L lines often forces these kinds of counterintuitive and unnecessarily circumlocutionary patterns of travel. So while an outsider from a city that has average to poor mass transit will obviously be impressed with the CTA system, I, like Steely, believe it has a long way to go before outsiders AND CHICAGOANS can be proud of it.

Privatizaton!

I think you have to take into consideraton how much this city has changed in a relatively short time. I know this is arbitrary, but I will use 1990 as the baseline when central Chicago's growth and development started on its path to explosiveness. And total tansformation.

So if we took the 15 years since that time, has the transit system grown and developed comenserate to other areas of growth? Clearly not. We have built up the need for more rapid transit, but have yet to satisfy it. As previously mentioned, projects like the Circle Line will begin to address the need.

Let's keep in mind that when cities like New York developed their rapid transit systems, the cost of a heavy rail project was not exhorbatant as it is today.

In fact, even systems like BART, MARTA, and DC's Metro could not be duplicated at this time. Even LA wouldn't consider heavy rail for anything other than its red line extension to the coast.

In that sense, the vast majority of the heavy rail you are going to see for many, many years is already in place.

I'll still hold on what I said before on NYC transit development: so much of it was topographically influenced and that it would have been a far different (and less comprehensive) system if Manhattan weren't long and narrow. Manhattan island was the world's greatest gift to rapid transit planners.

But it seems like cities outside the US are expanding their rail systems dramatically (most notably Seoul, Madrid), no?

Chicago deesperately needs a lew lakeshore subway line. The city has surged eastward, you've got Streeterville, Navy Pier, the new Lakeshore East, Millenium Park, And the whole south loop boom, a reborn Soldier Field and the ever-expanding McCormick Place.


Think of the potential stops.....Museum of Modern Art/Navy Pier? Buckingham Fountain/Grant Park/ Field Museum?Soldier Field/McCormick Place.

It could solidify Chicago's tourism and convention industry for generations to come.

Has anyone ever seen such a plan put forward?

a question...

Does anyone know how much rapid transit expansion has taken place in NYC since the following impressive list was built in Chicago (I'm going to guess: no much):

• blue (Congress) line construction on Eisenhower (Congress expy) median

• revamping existing trackage to create Yellow (Skokie Swift)

• blue extension: Logan Square to O'Hare

• Dan Ryan median + its extention to 95th

• virtually entire Orange Line to Midway

• new track to allow linkage from Med Ctr to Lake Street elevated



And an observation....

I'd be the first to say that NYC is more thoroughly blanketed with rapid transit than is Chicago. A map of their system blows away the image of ours. But rapid transit is not only about maps and coverage. Service counts too. I have never felt I was on a cattle train on CTA; in New York, I have had that feeling. Theirs is an old, old system and little has been done to modernize it, short of trying to remove graffiti from subway cars. It's a pit. Elevated lines that snake through Chicago neighborhoods in add character; those in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx that do the same seem oppresive.

Meanwhile, here in Chicago, and despite the fact that many forumers here lament it, we have a strong car culture to go along with our public transportation culture. Manhattan is ruled by rapid transit and its usage warrants the type of extensive coverage it receives. There are plenty of Chicagoans and suburbanites who are more than happy this is a city that offers fine public transportation, but one that they can still use their cars (admittedly with horrendous traffic and obscene parking rates....I'm hardly kidding myself on this one).

So let me take you back to what an out-of-towner kindly observed when he (Flatiron) started this thread: "I was in chicago last spring with my family and were planning on using the car, but we used transit the hole time. I was very impressed with the quickness of the trains".

Please note: no comparisons with other cities, no desire to see where CTA ranks among other transit systems. Simply.....you've got a great system, Chicago.

It's back to the old comparisons: I don't need New York to understand Chicago. Chicago is not trying to be New York. And if you excuse my f-ing rant here (because I will admit that it is one that really pushes my buttons):

I READ ON THIS BOARD, BUT I LIVE IN A REAL WORLD. AND OUT IN THAT "REAL WORLD", WHERE I COME ACROSS A WIDE SPECTRUM OF PEOPLE, MANY OF WHICH ARE DAMNED SOPHISTICATED, I SPEAK TO AND HEAR FROM FELLOW CHICAGOANS WHO THINK THAT THIS IS THE BEST DAMNED CITY AROUND, WHO THINK IT FAR EXCEEDS NY OR LA AS A CITY AND WHO FIND ANY THOUGHT OF A "SECOND CITY COMPLEX" TODAY AS BEING FUCKING RIDICULOUS. MEANWHILE, I ALSO ENCOUNTER PLENTY OF PEOPLE FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE U.S., INCLUDING NY AND THE NORTHEAST AND LA AND CALIFORNIA......AND THEY HAVE NOTHING BUT RESPECT FOR CHICAGO AND ITS OFFERINGS. FORGIVE MY RANT, BUT "LITTLE OL' CHICAGO HAS NOTHING TO BE ASHAMED OF....AND A HELLUVA LOT TO BE PROUD OF

My sincerest wish for those living in Chicago who think that New York is the center of the universe is that they get the opporunity to live in the city of their dreams. ASAP. Everybody deserves to be happy.

look, i ride the CTA every single day, and i have first hand experience dealing with the London and NYC transit systems. you can disagree with me all you want, but it will not change my belief that the CTA is a sad joke compared to these other two transit systems. hell, the CTA can't even stand up to a system like toronto's. the CTA might be pretty good compared to minneapolis or st. louis, or cleveland etc. but come on, aren't we setting the bar pretty damn low if that's who we're measuring ourselves against?

to someone from minneapolis, i suppose that the CTA could be perceived as "impressive", but in my eyes i just find it laughable. why is one of the greatest cities in the country, hell, even the world, saddled with such a second-rate, HORRENDOUSLY mismanaged, after thought, transit system?

oh well, i suppose there's an outside chance that the circle line might open up just in time for my retirement three and a half decades from now.

Again, I don't really think it is fair to compare the CTA to NYC or London transit. These are very different metro areas that developed in a far different fashion than Chicago. NYC has geography going for it while London has a much larger, denser central area. Major commercial development outside the Loop is a relatively recent development. The Loop has been (and still is) the center of the area and all trains run to it. Good or bad, it is what it is. To expect a far reachinf system of trains that allows anyone to go anywhere is unrealistic.

Toronoto certainly has a nice system but even they fall short in many areas when compared to the CTA. Trains only run until about 2:00 AM. There is no 24 hour rail service. Toronto does offer nightime bus service on 24 routes. CTA offers 24 hour rail service on 2 different lines as well as 17 nighttime bus routes. CTA also costs $1.75 US verses the approx. $2.15 US on the Toronto system.

As far as comparing to other cities go, I agree that comparisons to places like Cleveland and St. Louis aren't very applicable. But comparisons to San Fransisco and Washington DC are very applicable. These systems are considered by many to be the next best in the country behind NYC. When you look at fares, geographical area covered and service hours, they don't stack up well against the CTA.

I am in full agreement that the management is bogus. A reorganization is in order.

As far as the Circle Line is concerned, remember that major rail transit projects take big dollars to pull off. Hell, the 2nd Ave. subway in NYC has been an on-again, off-again project for the last 40 years and it is still probably a decade away from being complete. Sure, the Circle Line isn't nearly as large in scope but to expect such a line to be built in a few years is unrealistic.

I would say that Chicago has the second or third best transit system in North America. NYC is by far the best, then maybe Toronto's, but compared to all other American cities, we are ahead imo.

But comparisons to San Fransisco and Washington DC are very applicable. These systems are considered by many to be the next best in the country behind NYC.

For the comparisons we have had here, BART may well be considered extremely weak. BART does well in getting people to diverse Bay Area locations. However, it offers San Francisco itslef minimal service. While numerous lines serve the city, they all run on the same track. Vast areas of SF are miles away from the nearest BART station.

As for DC Metro, from a perspective of logical 21st rapid transit needs based on areas served, this one may be the best of the bunch, arguably the US's best system. No rapid transit system in the US can come close to Metro's combination of extensive city wide service and the blanketing of the metro area with numerous lines heading outward to MD and VA. The only thing Metro doesn't offer is some sort of rapid transit beltway for intrasuburban connections.

Metro combines the best of NYC transit for city coverage with the best of BART in area-wide coverage.

I think it's a little ridiculous to compare our system to London's, when London has the oldest real subway system in the world - 150 years of innovation on that system, which was started and continued to expand at a time when Britain pretty much ruled the world, and London was Rome. And although British rail had its detractors (Dr. Beeching, etcetera), Londoners continued to use the tube steadily, while we here were ripping out our streetcar tracks to accomodate heavy auto traffic.

If we had not stupidly ripped out our streetcar tracks, Chicago today would be much different. We would definitely have a public transit system comparable to NYC.

"Toronoto certainly has a nice system but even they fall short in many areas when compared to the CTA. Trains only run until about 2:00 AM. There is no 24 hour rail service. Toronto does offer nightime bus service on 24 routes. CTA offers 24 hour rail service on 2 different lines as well as 17 nighttime bus routes. CTA also costs $1.75 US verses the approx. $2.15 US on the Toronto system."


Not to knock Chicago's transit...it and the TTC (and every other transit system) have their strong points and weak points, and ALL of them face challenges. Chicago is fortunate that while it may not be everything it could be at the moment, it's at least in a position to fix them, because good transit relies on good city planning, and Chicago already has the infastructure and built form in place to do that. Other cities may be spending big bucks on transit, but they don't "work". Where's the genius in spending billions building subway lines nobody is ever going to ride?

But I don't think the TTC falls short in "many" areas vs Chicago...and not in the two you mentioned.

The subways may close for 3 1/2 to 4 hrs, but ridership levels simply don't justify the operational costs, and the main reason the TTC can offer such great service, is because they run a VERY tight ship...they could run it 24hrs, but it would lower overall service because of those extra costs, as it's by a huge margin, the most cost efficient transit system in north america (possibly the world). Why lower the service for the 98% of the riders during the rest of the day? Closing for a few hours also allows for proper and thorough maintenance.

The Blue Night service is extensive...97% of every person in the entire city is within a short walking distance of this service. And the frequencies and connectivity is pretty good (better than a lot of other city's regular service).

And to say it doesn't offer 24hr rail service would technically be incorrect, as there are also 2 Blue Night LRT (streetcar) routes.

So, no, I don't think Toronto's late night service falls short of Chicago's....it may very well be better overall.



As far as fares go, you're a bit off....the cash fare is $2.50 CDN, but who pays a cash fare? You either buy tickets or tokens for $2.00 CDN (available anywhere), or use an unlimited use, transferable monthly Metropass ( 98 bucks).

And the upfront fee (the fare) is not the only cost....it costs everybody extra...in the form of taxes to subsidize the system. And that's where the TTC is at the top of it's game....it gets 80% + of the operating cost of the system right out of the fare box....it only costs the city $246 million (current) to fund the entire operating cost of the transit system out of it's budget...and that's to provide 430 million linked trips (as opposed to boardings).

So no...it doesn't cost Torontonians more for it's transit system than Chicagoans. In fact, you get more for your dollar in Toronto than you do Chicago.


But there is one area that Toronto does fall short of Chicago....funding from upper levels of government. Chicago enjoys healthy amounts of funding from state and federal governments...Toronto gets raped by the province and the feds.







KGB

With a system that looks like this...

http://osamuabe.ld.infoseek.co.jp/subway/mappage/chicago.gif

You guys should be proud.

Toronto's:

http://osamuabe.ld.infoseek.co.jp/subway/mappage/toronto.gif

If we had not stupidly ripped out our streetcar tracks, Chicago today would be much different. We would definitely have a public transit system comparable to NYC.

I disagree.

There were two reasons why streetcar tracks were ripped out, as far as i can tell. First, the volume was too great and the move was made to separate-grade rail (ie CTA Rail as we think of it). Second, technology evolved and busses allowed for greater fluidity of routes and interaction with ground traffic. If we had not ripped out the tracks in the former case, Chicago would never have amassed the density it did (which in and of itself was quite a feat). If we had not ripped out the tracks in the secondary case, nothing much would have changed. Chicago is not really a city that thinks that only homeless people ride the bus, and neither is NYC. If anything, busses are cheaper to maintain and to modify spontaneously than streetcar rail. The only reason I can see of street car rail being anything spectacular is to erase the middle-class, suburban concept of public transit being decaying and for unshowered hobos, and chicago doesn't need any of that in the here and now.

EDIT: The only reason I can see of streetcar tracks being ripped out being a bad thing is in, for example, LA's case, where miles and miles of high quality public transit was ripped out for... the automobile industry. (For a thorough historical analysis, see Who Framed Roger Rabbit?)

Am I the only person here who firmly believes that Manhattan density, Manhattan growth and continuous centralization in virtually all parts of the island, and Manhattan rapid transit development is massively tied in to the nature of a long, thin island, separted from neighboring land masses by sufficently broad rivers?

Is it safe to say that if the Chicago River had the width of the East River in on its north and south channels and both of those had eastward extensions into Lake Michigan far up the north and the south sides (creating a Manhattan like island with a narrow cut across its middle when the main branch of the Chicago River is located), that central Chicago's building patterns, density, and rapid transit would be heckuva lot more like Manhattan's than it is today?

Manhattan's topography and geography are incredibly special and unusual and, at least to me, help to explain why New York looks like and operates like the New York it is.

Flat cities without obstructions (as in...the Chgo River is an obstruction) can not possibly give the blanket coverage to mass transit as the island of Manhattan can.

^ edsg, yes, manhattan is dense in part due to the fact it lies on an island. yes, we all get that. now let's throw manhattan out the window.

let's go across the pond, to london, a city that sits on a wide expansive plain alongside a river. now here's a city that doesn't sit on an island, yet it has a public transit system that shits all over chicago's. some people thinks it's unfair to compare chicago to london. that's fine, it probably is unfair, but my point about chicago's transit being a joke compared to london's still doesn't change. the first poster in this thread said he was impressed with the CTA, and i was merely trying to tell him that if he was impressed with chicago, he needs to get out and travel some more because there are other transit systems out there in the world that kick the holy living shit out of the chicago transit authority.

with the sole exception of NYC, transit in america is a joke. it's sad, but true. we just don't value it as a society, and our cities pay the price for our collective disinterest.

"Toronoto certainly has a nice system but even they fall short in many areas when compared to the CTA. Trains only run until about 2:00 AM. There is no 24 hour rail service. Toronto does offer nightime bus service on 24 routes. CTA offers 24 hour rail service on 2 different lines as well as 17 nighttime bus routes. CTA also costs $1.75 US verses the approx. $2.15 US on the Toronto system."


Not to knock Chicago's transit...it and the TTC (and every other transit system) have their strong points and weak points, and ALL of them face challenges. Chicago is fortunate that while it may not be everything it could be at the moment, it's at least in a position to fix them, because good transit relies on good city planning, and Chicago already has the infastructure and built form in place to do that. Other cities may be spending big bucks on transit, but they don't "work". Where's the genius in spending billions building subway lines nobody is ever going to ride?

But I don't think the TTC falls short in "many" areas vs Chicago...and not in the two you mentioned.

The subways may close for 3 1/2 to 4 hrs, but ridership levels simply don't justify the operational costs, and the main reason the TTC can offer such great service, is because they run a VERY tight ship...they could run it 24hrs, but it would lower overall service because of those extra costs, as it's by a huge margin, the most cost efficient transit system in north america (possibly the world). Why lower the service for the 98% of the riders during the rest of the day? Closing for a few hours also allows for proper and thorough maintenance.

The Blue Night service is extensive...97% of every person in the entire city is within a short walking distance of this service. And the frequencies and connectivity is pretty good (better than a lot of other city's regular service).

And to say it doesn't offer 24hr rail service would technically be incorrect, as there are also 2 Blue Night LRT (streetcar) routes.

So, no, I don't think Toronto's late night service falls short of Chicago's....it may very well be better overall.



As far as fares go, you're a bit off....the cash fare is $2.50 CDN, but who pays a cash fare? You either buy tickets or tokens for $2.00 CDN (available anywhere), or use an unlimited use, transferable monthly Metropass ( 98 bucks).

And the upfront fee (the fare) is not the only cost....it costs everybody extra...in the form of taxes to subsidize the system. And that's where the TTC is at the top of it's game....it gets 80% + of the operating cost of the system right out of the fare box....it only costs the city $246 million (current) to fund the entire operating cost of the transit system out of it's budget...and that's to provide 430 million linked trips (as opposed to boardings).

So no...it doesn't cost Torontonians more for it's transit system than Chicagoans. In fact, you get more for your dollar in Toronto than you do Chicago.


But there is one area that Toronto does fall short of Chicago....funding from upper levels of government. Chicago enjoys healthy amounts of funding from state and federal governments...Toronto gets raped by the province and the feds.







KGB

Chicago does get its state backing when it comes to funding, however Illinois gets the shaft from the federal government's distribution of funds. Illinois is a donar state and has been for a long time, only recieving 72 cents for every dollar we send to Washington. On top of that, transit in this country is serriously underfunded. Paratransit funding (for elderly and disbled) for example has been completly phased out under the current wonderful admistration runing the nation. This has forced many transit agancies into the red as they have to cope with the costs of paratransit themselfs. Illinois wanted to shift paratransit funding to medicare, which can be rembursed through the feds, but that may not happen now since Bush's new budget calls for a $35 BILLION cut in medicare.


One thing that did really impress me about TTC is how well its managed, from the macro down to the micro levels. I love how so many bus routes are cordinated to make transfers quick and easy. Two things the CTA despretly needs to work on.

One thing that did really impress me about TTC is how well its managed, from the macro down to the micro levels. I love how so many bus routes are cordinated to make transfers quick and easy. Two things the CTA despretly needs to work on.

ain't that the truth. too many people are tempted to look at a rail map and say "see, chicago has got more lines and stations than toronto", but what people forget is that infrastructure and coverage are only a part of the transit story. a much bigger piece of the puzzle is operations and management, and that's where the CTA exposes itself as the laughing stock that it is.

I disagree.

There were two reasons why streetcar tracks were ripped out, as far as i can tell. First, the volume was too great and the move was made to separate-grade rail (ie CTA Rail as we think of it). Second, technology evolved and busses allowed for greater fluidity of routes and interaction with ground traffic. If we had not ripped out the tracks in the former case, Chicago would never have amassed the density it did (which in and of itself was quite a feat). If we had not ripped out the tracks in the secondary case, nothing much would have changed. Chicago is not really a city that thinks that only homeless people ride the bus, and neither is NYC. If anything, busses are cheaper to maintain and to modify spontaneously than streetcar rail. The only reason I can see of street car rail being anything spectacular is to erase the middle-class, suburban concept of public transit being decaying and for unshowered hobos, and chicago doesn't need any of that in the here and now.

EDIT: The only reason I can see of streetcar tracks being ripped out being a bad thing is in, for example, LA's case, where miles and miles of high quality public transit was ripped out for... the automobile industry. (For a thorough historical analysis, see Who Framed Roger Rabbit?)

Wrongo chief....

Streetcars and Els co-existed and were all privaley funded and opertated untill 1947. Els came along in 1892, while the streetcar network was in already in place. Streecars started as horse pulled cars on tracks which then evolved into cable cars and then electric streetcars. This was the trend in nearly every decent sized American city, while a select few had grade-seperated rapid transit built in additio to the street railway system.

Chicago grew because of its street railways, private developers and street railway companies developed the land along streetcars because the customers purchasing te housing would then use the system to get to work. This is why Chicago developed the way it did, dense commercial streets placed at mile and half-mile intervals because that is where the farm roads where located, laid out on a jeffersonian grid dividing up the land into farm plots. Streetcar tracks were laid on these roads, as well as diagnol streets raidating outward from the city center on old indian trails. Once the tracks were put down, the farm plots were subdivided and the city grew. Chicago's street railway system was the largest in the world at its peak in the 1940's.

CTA was created in 1947 and consolidated all of the privatley owned transit systems, including 6 streetcar companies and 4 elevated railroad comapnies. The CTA then jumped on the trend of using buses that was already established for 20 years because of a plot by General Motors to buy up street railway companies and replace them with GM built buses in order to make as many Americans as possible ride in GM vehicles. Streetcar right-of-ways disapered as the tracks were riped out and streets repaved to make cities as accessable as possible to automobiles.

Streetcars in thier own right of ways (such as a dedicated lane on the street, or a median) were very common in the past and are much faster than typical bus routes, plus traffic volume of private autos was far less than today, which clogs streets and makes buses very ineffiecent. Streetcars also last longer than buses and are cheaper to mamintian, however the cantary wire and trackage is an added cost. If we only didn't dismatle the streetcar system, we would have a transit system completly uneffected by volitile gas prices, and with far less polloution.

"One thing that did really impress me about TTC is how well its managed, from the macro down to the micro levels. I love how so many bus routes are cordinated to make transfers quick and easy. Two things the CTA despretly needs to work on."


One of the key elements of the TTC's success, is the total integration of subways and surface routes (bus and streetcar)...all surface routes connect to the subways. And good frequencies...even on the less traveled routes. This connectivity provides high ridership, because it gets good wlak-in business, plus excellent feeder capacity.







"too many people are tempted to look at a rail map and say "see, chicago has got more lines and stations than toronto"


Well, length of track doesn't mean that much...it's placement, integration and built form around it that is more important. Look at Atlanta and DC....they built tons of subway track, but it's not well placed, and suffer from poor ridership. Toronto has less subway track, but because of where it's built, gets better use because it is a more efficient design. You get a hell of a lot more bang for your buck, by building subways directly under major, grided streets, than you do running them in more out of the way areas.

And you can't compare cities that well, as route design is heavily dependent on the built form of the city, which differes wildly.

Don't get me wrong, Toronto could, and should, have way more subway lines.










"Second, technology evolved and busses allowed for greater fluidity of routes and interaction with ground traffic. If anything, busses are cheaper to maintain and to modify spontaneously than streetcar rail. The only reason I can see of street car rail being anything spectacular is to erase the middle-class, suburban concept of public transit being decaying and for unshowered hobos, and chicago doesn't need any of that in the here and now."



mmmm....don't agree with your idea at all. Now, Toronto is a different city than Chicago, so this has to be taken into consideration.

But streetcars even in mixed traffic, move more people, faster than buses on the same route will (again, this is a proven fact in Toronto...Chicago is a differnt city). They have signal priority equipment for forward movement, and control the traffic behind them.

Besides that, people generally don't enjoy riding on buses...but they LOVE riding on streetcars (again, this is Toronto)....it's a much smoother ride and spacious, and has a certain air of sophistication that even subways don't have. I live in a building with streetcar at my door...I ride it every day, and can tell you from experience...there's a sense of social integration on a streetcar...people treat it like their living room...lots of easy lounging and chit chat. It's a happy scene.

Buses on the other hand...nobody talks...people feel claustaphobic...dour faces....jerky ride. People don't look comfortable, or that they they having a great time.

Streetcars on ROW offer better timing, but when they are in downtown, they aren't really any faster than mixed-traffic streetcars all the time...sounds strange, but it's true. It's prefered mostly for it's ability to have a more controled shedule.

Streetcars are a form of LRT, and as such, are not really in competition with buses...they are meant to carry a ridership load somewhere between subways and buses...they are a modal vehicle in their own catagory (or should at least be designed at treated as such). 4 out of 5 of the busiest surface routes in Toronto, are streetcar routes. While only 11 of the TTC’s 149 surface routes are operated with streetcars, these routes carry 17% of all passengers travelling on the TTC’s surface network.

Streetcars have a much longer lifespan than buses, and are actually more cost-efficient based on miles of passenger trips. They are also far more environmentally friendly,producing approximately 93% fewer emissions than buses, on a per passenger-kilometre basis, even after taking into account the off-site generation of electricity required for the streetcars.







"If we only didn't dismatle the streetcar system, we would have a transit system completly uneffected by volitile gas prices, and with far less polloution."


You are right...once they are gone, it's hard to replace them. Toronto has great streetcar service, because it has had uninterupted streetcar service since 1861. They are not only a great modal form, they are a much-loved part of life in the city. All the great nabes and streets in the city, are streetcar streets....College-Little Italy, The Beach, Queen West, Spadina-Chinatown, St Clair, etc.




Map of the streetcar routes (in red) ....




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/TTCstreetcarmap-2005.png







KGB

^ edsg, yes, manhattan is dense in part due to the fact it lies on an island. yes, we all get that. now let's throw manhattan out the window.

let's go across the pond, to london, a city that sits on a wide expansive plain alongside a river. now here's a city that doesn't sit on an island, yet it has a public transit system that shits all over chicago's. some people thinks it's unfair to compare chicago to london. that's fine, it probably is unfair, but my point about chicago's transit being a joke compared to london's still doesn't change. the first poster in this thread said he was impressed with the CTA, and i was merely trying to tell him that if he was impressed with chicago, he needs to get out and travel some more because there are other transit systems out there in the world that kick the holy living shit out of the chicago transit authority.

with the sole exception of NYC, transit in america is a joke. it's sad, but true. we just don't value it as a society, and our cities pay the price for our collective disinterest.

Of course London's system would kick the shit out of Chicago's. But what is the point of comparing them? They are so different that any comparison loses all meaning. When compared to the L, the Underground has nearly twice as many stations running along roughly 15% more track mileage. In terms of ridership, the Underground has over FIVE TIMES the ridership of the L. The city covers more than double the surface area of Chicago and has well over twice as many people.

The CTA would indeed be a sad joke when compared to something like that. And that's what makes the comparison so goofy. Chicago is a joke compared to London just like Minneapolis is a joke compared to Chicago and just like Bumblefuck, IL is a joke compared to Minneapolis. The places are so different though that the comparisions make no sense.

Its like saying a Ford Escort is a joke compared to a Mercedes Benz S-class. A fair assesment but it doesn't make the Escort any less of an acceptable form of transportation.

^ I think his point (correct me if I am wrong) was that a city like Chicago deserves a system more on par with London than other U.S. cities. Regardless of how it looks without comparisons, the fact is that a better standard exists and it is one that Chicagoans should be able to enjoy.

Or maybe his point was just that Chicago's system sucks and there's no point to celebrate it...

Wrongo chief....

Streetcars and Els co-existed and were all privaley funded and opertated untill 1947. Els came along in 1892, while the streetcar network was in already in place. Streecars started as horse pulled cars on tracks which then evolved into cable cars and then electric streetcars. This was the trend in nearly every decent sized American city, while a select few had grade-seperated rapid transit built in additio to the street railway system.

Chicago grew because of its street railways, private developers and street railway companies developed the land along streetcars because the customers purchasing te housing would then use the system to get to work. This is why Chicago developed the way it did, dense commercial streets placed at mile and half-mile intervals because that is where the farm roads where located, laid out on a jeffersonian grid dividing up the land into farm plots. Streetcar tracks were laid on these roads, as well as diagnol streets raidating outward from the city center on old indian trails. Once the tracks were put down, the farm plots were subdivided and the city grew. Chicago's street railway system was the largest in the world at its peak in the 1940's.

CTA was created in 1947 and consolidated all of the privatley owned transit systems, including 6 streetcar companies and 4 elevated railroad comapnies. The CTA then jumped on the trend of using buses that was already established for 20 years because of a plot by General Motors to buy up street railway companies and replace them with GM built buses in order to make as many Americans as possible ride in GM vehicles. Streetcar right-of-ways disapered as the tracks were riped out and streets repaved to make cities as accessable as possible to automobiles.

Streetcars in thier own right of ways (such as a dedicated lane on the street, or a median) were very common in the past and are much faster than typical bus routes, plus traffic volume of private autos was far less than today, which clogs streets and makes buses very ineffiecent. Streetcars also last longer than buses and are cheaper to mamintian, however the cantary wire and trackage is an added cost. If we only didn't dismatle the streetcar system, we would have a transit system completly uneffected by volitile gas prices, and with far less polloution.

I did not say that streetcars and els did not coexist. I said they were either ripped out for better rail (as in the case of Chicago's Loop) or for busses (which you confirm).

As for your entire last paragraph, I dispute. You're comparing dedicated ROW at-grade transit with non-dedicated ROW at-grade transit, which of course means that busses today move much slower. And of course traffic volume of private autos was far less back then (and as was street-level parking). I don't see the relevancy of this at all. Busses can also be used in dedicated ROW situations (read: BRT) and are cheaper to implement and maintain than street car systems (look at federal research reports). And, since they aren't tied to a trackage system, can still be much more fluid in route (one of my original arguments).

I also dispute your statement that streetcars are cheaper to maintain than busses without any numbers, and even if it is the case, the "added costs" of ripping up road and maintaining trackage and catenary wire is not minor at all.
"If we only didn't dismatle the streetcar system, we would have a transit system completly uneffected by volitile gas prices, and with far less polloution." This may be true, but I don't see how this addresses what I said. And it's more likely that (given the way Chicago and America has invested in transit), even if we had maintained the streetcar system, the vast majority of it would be slow, badly in need of maintenance, ready to fall apart. Atleast with busses, when you rebuilds you also rebuild what they're riding on, unlike rail, which is a separate maintenance feature.

I believe also that LA had the largest rail system in the world pre-Bus invasion.

EDIT: Egad I suck at English.

Its like saying a Ford Escort is a joke compared to a Mercedes Benz S-class. A fair assesment but it doesn't make the Escort any less of an acceptable form of transportation.

that's a good analogy, except that the london underground is more like a ferrari.

if someone said the following to me:

"guess what, i just saw a ferrari in my neighbor's drive-way, and let me tell you, i sure was impressed."

i would find that completely reasonable.




however, if someone said this to me:

"guess what, i just saw a ford escort in my neighbor's drive-way, and let me tell you, i sure was impressed."

i would laugh at them.



apply this scenario to the first post in this thread and you'll understand where i'm coming from.

I beleive also that LA had the alrgest rail system in teh world pre-Bus invasion.

That is true.

^ edsg, yes, manhattan is dense in part due to the fact it lies on an island. yes, we all get that. now let's throw manhattan out the window.


yes, dan, we're all aware that chicago and every u.s. city shake in the wake of the mighty shaddow of the invincible metropolis on the hudson in all categories. we all get that, too.

yes, dan, we're all aware that chicago and every u.s. city shake in the wake of the mighty shaddow of the invincible metropolis on the hudson in all categories. we all get that, too.

when have i ever made that claim, or even intimated it? perhaps you have me confused with jive?

NYC is a fantastic city, but i like chicago better. however, i can freely admit to the reality that american transit is generally pretty damn poor going by world standards, with the exception of NYC. the CTA is ok. it's good, but it's not great....... it's a ford escort......... come on........ london has a ferrari and it isn't located on an island. i just want a ferrari too, goddamnit, because this shitty old escort kinda sucks.

^The CTA is atleast a Ford Taurus.

The CTA would indeed be a sad joke when compared to something like that. And that's what makes the comparison so goofy. Chicago is a joke compared to London just like Minneapolis is a joke compared to Chicago and just like Bumblefuck, IL is a joke compared to Minneapolis. The places are so different though that the comparisions make no sense.

Its like saying a Ford Escort is a joke compared to a Mercedes Benz S-class. A fair assesment but it doesn't make the Escort any less of an acceptable form of transportation.

I would agree. It is the size and nature of a city that determines its rapid transit system. The CTA is able to serve the size and nature of Chicago very well.

Our city is very centralized and so is CTA rapid transit. Despite gaps (Streeterville, connecting the metra stations to Michigan Avenue, etc.), central Chicago is well served by CTA.

And generally speaking, the N, NW, W, SW, and S sides are well served with conections with downtown, even if the SE side is not.


If we are to build transit lines that by-pass the downtown area, we have to look at the jobs offered in the city outside the greater Loop. I'm not sure that currently we offer enough peripheral employment centers to warrant CTA expansion in non-downtown service.

The chief non-central employment centers, places where there is a converegence of lots of people tend already be served by CTA....i.e. O'Hare, Midway, Med Center, Loyola, DePaul, U of C (although barely there). I'm not sure that any truly need more connection by loop-by-passes, particularly when the Circle Line is built.

Another issue I raised has yet to be addressed:

The cost of heavy rail is so exhorbatant that so little is planned for future development. NO US CITY WILL EXPERIENCE MUCH GROWTH IN THIS TPE OF SYSTEM, NO MATTER HOW WARRANTED.

Look at the evidence: Both LA (extension of the Red Line to Westside and Santa Monica) and NYC (construction of the sorely needed 2nd Ave. subway) are nowhere near the final planning or construction stage. Chicago is not proceeding with Circle Line devleopment with any diliberate speed. Nothing, I believe, has happened in additional development in Boston & Philly. BART, MARTA, and DC Metro advance trackage increases only on the less-expensive suburban periphery, and even there slowly. Baltimore has never had more than one heavy transit line. And no US metro area without heavy rail is ever likely to build one.

Some of our discussion here becomes almost irrelevant in the sense that much of what cold be done in American cities no longer can be done today.

Heavy rail will probably never be expanded in any significant sense, yes, (with the possible exception of NYC and Chicago), but light rail is on the surge. For most cities, this is all that's needed.

Discussion is irrelevant when you consider most (99%) of american cities couldn't remotely support heavy rail, and most of Chicago couldn't even support it (the only line I've seen proposed that would work really well is the mid-city transit line or whatever itw as called... i have my doubts about the circle line).

just a side point , the chicago metropolitainarea has more than just the cta buss system and the EL, we got Pace and the Metra also , whenyou combine all 4 you got yourself one seriouse public transportation system. ....now if we could just get them to work together better lol

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8918/undergroundmap2is.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

:drool: