News   Jul 04, 2024
Cranes Get Lower! UrbanToronto Reports the Crane Count for Q2 2024
 385     1 
News   Jul 04, 2024
Parliament & Co Close to Topping Off in Downtown East
 488     0 
News   Jul 04, 2024
News Roundup for July 4, 2024
 546     1 

Toronto/Chicago comparisons

bleu said:
True. Chicago has a much larger regional train system as well.
Metra has 11 lines and 785 km, Go has 7 lines and 460km.
Click to expand...

And, shockingly, they actually have trains throughout the day and on weekends running in both directions!
 
nfitz said:
Since Metrolinx unveiled the next wave of Big Move projects about 10 weeks ago - http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1080785/metrolinx-unveils-next-wave-of-big-move-projects

It's quite a list:

DRl, Yonge extension to Langstaff, Hurontario LRT, Hamilton LRT, Dundas BRT, Durham-Scarborough BRT, Brampton Queen RT (LRT or BRT), GO Lakeshore Express Phase 1 (including electrification), GO Kitchener electrification, Union Pearson electrification, GO extensions to Hamilton (CN line near Liuna) and Bowmanville, and more two-way and all-day GO service.

It's early days yet, but they've certainly delivered relatively well on the first wave.
Click to expand...

I am aware of that. I just don't think it should be considered "approved".
I mean we haven't decided a route and there is no money for it yet, right? Nothing is certain. We can't just take it as a fact and consider it a done deal and be completed in 20 years. The Eglinton line was under construction back in the days before it was cancelled and holes filled in. Transit City is another example.

It is nothing more than a plan. CTA also have a few plans of extension and new lines. If we include proposals, we should compare apple to apple.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
So do New York, Philly And Boston. Miami and LA, too.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for the others, but the commuter train service in Miami is a useless and supremely inconvenient joke. Imagine if our downtown station was at Avenue Rd. and Eglinton, and every other station was a massive parking lot nestled in between highways and ghettos.

Lakeshore GO alone is infinitely better than anything Miami has in terms of commuter rail.
 
RC8 said:
I can't speak for the others, but the commuter train service in Miami is a useless and supremely inconvenient joke. Imagine if our downtown station was at Avenue Rd. and Eglinton, and every other station was a massive parking lot nestled in between highways and ghettos.

Lakeshore GO alone is infinitely better than anything Miami has in terms of commuter rail.
Click to expand...
I've heard. But the line runs through the swamp. They should relocate it.

TOareaFan said:
Which, I guess, would be relevant if the thread was a discussion about Toronto /Big US cities Comparisons....since it was limited to Chicago...I thought I would limit my point too ;)
Click to expand...
I was just saying because having all day service on most of the line is not the standard at all. GO is going ahead to above standard
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
I've heard. But the line runs through the swamp. They should relocate it.


I was just saying because having all day service on most of the line is not the standard at all. GO is going ahead to above standard
Click to expand...

? I was comparing, favourably, Metra with GO.....all 11 Metra lines have off peak service that is as good as GO offers on one of its lines.

Like I said, I have not looked at other cities because this was a discussion about Chicago v Toronto....but if Chicago is the "standard" GO has a lot of work to get close. (in terms of commuter rail that is....having lived here most of my life, and having visited Chicago a lot....there is a lot of good to be said about both cities. What I find, generally, is if you like one you will like the other....in specific areas (in this case commuter rail) one may surpass the other but overall I think they are very comparable cities.
 
TOareaFan said:
? I was comparing, favourably, Metra with GO.....all 11 Metra lines have off peak service that is as good as GO offers on one of its lines.

Like I said, I have not looked at other cities because this was a discussion about Chicago v Toronto....but if Chicago is the "standard" GO has a lot of work to get close. (in terms of commuter rail that is....having lived here most of my life, and having visited Chicago a lot....there is a lot of good to be said about both cities. What I find, generally, is if you like one you will like the other....in specific areas (in this case commuter rail) one may surpass the other but overall I think they are very comparable cities.
Click to expand...

GO is the LEAST subsidized transit agency in North America, the TTC is the second least subsidized. If GO (and the TTC) had the same subsidy as Chicago, they would both be better.
 
TOareaFan said:
? I was comparing, favourably, Metra with GO.....all 11 Metra lines have off peak service that is as good as GO offers on one of its lines.

Like I said, I have not looked at other cities because this was a discussion about Chicago v Toronto....but if Chicago is the "standard" GO has a lot of work to get close. (in terms of commuter rail that is....having lived here most of my life, and having visited Chicago a lot....there is a lot of good to be said about both cities. What I find, generally, is if you like one you will like the other....in specific areas (in this case commuter rail) one may surpass the other but overall I think they are very comparable cities.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that most commuter rail lines don't have off peak service on all their lines. What Chicago does is above average there. And the east coast cities as well. Toronto is trying to do that as well saw in the big move, but they have almost no money as WK Lis pointed out. We don't even know when it will be complete IMO.
 
bleu said:
We are comparing capacity here, not ridership. No need to bring this into the discussion.
Chicago has lower ridership because it is much cheaper to own a car there, and sometimes it is dangerous to take the subway. But they have nothing to do with which city has more extensive rapid transit system, right?

Also Chicago present has a metro system of 173km, Toronto has less than 69km. Eglinton Crosstown will add 19km, not sure how long the DRL will be, but it is hard to imagine it will be 85km long to match Chicago's entire system. We will be lucky to have 100km when both are constructed

I have no idea why some think in 20 years Toronto will have a more extensive subway than Chicago.
Click to expand...

I am by no means a Chicago expert, but do remember on a visit once being astonished by the (in)frequency of some of the El lines. Seemed like 15 minute waits off peak were commonplace--perhaps this has changed, but I do think that in general we Torontonians take for granted that the subway, limited though it is, is never more than a few minutes away. To say nothing of the admittedly theoretical 2 or 3 minute headways on the major steeetcar and bus routes, which are very tight by any standard.
 
allabootmatt said:
I am by no means a Chicago expert, but do remember on a visit once being astonished by the (in)frequency of some of the El lines. Seemed like 15 minute waits off peak were commonplace--perhaps this has changed, but I do think that in general we Torontonians take for granted that the subway, limited though it is, is never more than a few minutes away.
Click to expand...
This is true in many cities. I've personally seen subway frequencies in London, Seoul, and New York that are far less frequent than our most infrequent line, at the most infrequent time of day (barring service delays).

Our most infrequent subway is Sheppard, and off-peak it's still about 11 trains an hour (once every 5.5. minutes). The other 2 lines are always better than 12 trains an hour.

Look at the L train in New York (which doesn't even have any branches). In central Manhattan - at midnight with relatively busy platforms, I've waited 20 minutes for one (looking at the schedule, they've now improved it to a 10-minute frequency at that time - 6 trains per hour - 20 minute service starts later now). If you look at the timetable - http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/tlcur.pdf - they have 6-8 minute gaps mid-day and start the 10-minute service at 10:30 pm!

Check a busy London tube line, like the Picadilly line. Departures from Terminal 5 are only once every 9 minutes at 10 pm. It's only once every 10 minutes at 8 pm ... and that's a weekday!

The bus frequencies on many of our routes are amazing - even off-peak. I don't think a lot of people really appreciate what we do have, and only focus on what we don't have.
 
I would quibble slightly with the London example--the central portions of virtually all Tube lines, where the various branches converge, typically offer very frequent service. New York can certainly be slow, however.
 
nfitz said:
This is true in many cities. I've personally seen subway frequencies in London, Seoul, and New York that are far less frequent than our most infrequent line, at the most infrequent time of day (barring service delays).

Our most infrequent subway is Sheppard, and off-peak it's still about 11 trains an hour (once every 5.5. minutes). The other 2 lines are always better than 12 trains an hour.

Look at the L train in New York (which doesn't even have any branches). In central Manhattan - at midnight with relatively busy platforms, I've waited 20 minutes for one (looking at the schedule, they've now improved it to a 10-minute frequency at that time - 6 trains per hour - 20 minute service starts later now). If you look at the timetable - http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/tlcur.pdf - they have 6-8 minute gaps mid-day and start the 10-minute service at 10:30 pm!

Check a busy London tube line, like the Picadilly line. Departures from Terminal 5 are only once every 9 minutes at 10 pm. It's only once every 10 minutes at 8 pm ... and that's a weekday!

The bus frequencies on many of our routes are amazing - even off-peak. I don't think a lot of people really appreciate what we do have, and only focus on what we don't have.
Click to expand...

what you said is true. TTC's frequency is pretty good.

But having said that, most of people would still prefer 8 lines with 10 minute frequency over 3 lines with 4 minute frequency. If it is less frequent, you can check schedule and plan ahead to avoid waiting too long, but if there is not a line there, there is nothing you can do.

We do have some advantages as you mentioned but overall, but the higher frequency really doesn't come close to offsetting the disadvantage of a tiny size of our metro system. What we need is more coverage.
 
allabootmatt said:
I would quibble slightly with the London example--the central portions of virtually all Tube lines, where the various branches converge, typically offer very frequent service. New York can certainly be slow, however.
Click to expand...
Agreed - it's the branches off-peak in Seoul and London where 10-minute frequencies aren't unusual - even in the early evening.

Though look at Montreal - they have no branching and 10-minute (or worse) off-peak frequencies. Heck, the orange line on a Sunday is never better than a 7-minute frequency, and as low as 11-minute.
 
bleu said:
what you said is true. TTC's frequency is pretty good.

But having said that, most of people would still prefer 8 lines with 10 minute frequency over 3 lines with 4 minute frequency. If it is less frequent, you can check schedule and plan ahead to avoid waiting too long, but if there is not a line there, there is nothing you can do.

We do have some advantages as you mentioned but overall, but the higher frequency really doesn't come close to offsetting the disadvantage of a tiny size of our metro system. What we need is more coverage.
Click to expand...
And tiny? It's about 70 km - what's bigger in Canada/USA? New York, Boston, LA, Chicago, and Washington. Atlanta is bigger if you don't include the Spadina extension. If you including the Eglinton Crosstown and SRT extensions currently being tendered, we're bigger than Boston. Including Finch West and Sheppard East we're bigger than LA (though LA will surely have grown by then ... and yes I included LA's LRT that isn't grade-separated, so it's a fair comparison).

Undersized perhaps ... but I wouldn't say tiny. Glasgow is tiny, and hasn't been expanded in over a century.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top