Toronto/Chicago comparisons

[TheTigerMaster]

Good grief. Compare yourself to 'best in class'. It's a bit pathetic to compare oneself to other poor performers and then conclude things are ok. Toronto's subway 'system' is absurdly small for a city this size. Triple it to about 200 km and it will begin to meet the needs of a modern global city.

As mentioned before, Toronto is on track to have a rapid transit system of just under 200 km within the next 10-15 years.

Just try to put this sort of rapid transit in downtown Toronto.

I would lose all faith in Toronto if that was built. It's an embarrassment.

 

[adma]

I would lose all faith in Toronto if that was built. It's an embarrassment.

But as a "grandfathered-in" preexisting condition, Chicagoans have adapted to/learned to live with it...to the point where it's as indelible a part of their "mythology" as streetcars are to Toronto. And as w/Toronto streetcars, force Chicagoans to part w/it, and there'd be an outcry.

That said, I highly doubt Chicagoans would suggest that it's a model for other cities to follow. It may be, technically, an eyesore; but it's *their* beloved eyesore: sui generis...

 

[Hipster Duck]

I would lose all faith in Toronto if that was built. It's an embarrassment.

An embarassment? I can think of words that the Chicago el conjures up like "iconic", "civic symbol", "practical" and "renowned" but I don't think "embarassment" would be one of them.

I also don't think Toronto - a city of sagging telephone poles, broken sidewalks and dead street trees - has much of a high horse to call Chicago out on civic embarassments, at least in the public realm.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

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.

Our frequencies are unique and I personally think that's part of the reason why we lose money on the TTC. It costs a lot to run so many train per hour.

 

[nfitz]

Our frequencies are unique and I personally think that's part of the reason why we lose money on the TTC. It costs a lot to run so many train per hour.

And yet we are closer to breaking even on a per rider basis than any of these other systems we've been discussing in Canada and the USA. Perhaps frequent service increases usage ...

 

[bleu]

...Is Eglinton and Yonge now considered part of "downtown" now (when compared to Atlanta)? If so, then the Eglinton Crosstown can be the first "downtown" underground railway (AKA "subway" in the dictionary) for Toronto since 1978.

How can E/Y be downown? The entire area between Davenport/Dupont and Eglinton is still very very residential except along Yonge st. It is hardly a full fledged midtown, not to mention downtown.
I do think we need a subway in downtown though, making important locations such as the waterfront, Chinatown, Little Italy, Kensington Market, St Lawrence Market, Queen W most accesible.

 

[bleu]

We have more kilometres than Montreal ... and are even a few metres ahead of Vancouver

except Montreal and Vancouver has 65% of 35% of Toronto's population, respectively.
Toronto's rapid transit is pretty pathetic, even in Canadian standard. The earlier we admit it (instead of looking for excuses), the better.

 

[bleu]

And yet we are closer to breaking even on a per rider basis than any of these other systems we've been discussing in Canada and the USA. Perhaps frequent service increases usage ...

maybe it is largely because prices are higher too?
comparing monthly passes prices and you will get an idea.

 

[nfitz]

except Montreal and Vancouver has 65% of 35% of Toronto's population, respectively.
Toronto's rapid transit is pretty pathetic, even in Canadian standard. The earlier we admit it (instead of looking for excuses), the better.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you. I don't think it justifies writing mistruths though, which was my point.

Not quite sure if we are ahead of Vancouver or not ... depends which source you look at ... and whether they include non-service track. It's very, very close.

Still there's far more kilometres under construction or currently being tendered in Toronto than either Montreal or Vancouver, so there's progress. When was the last time any Canadian city had 6 TBMs active (and I include being on-Site, being prepared for launch as being active) with 2 more arriving soon..

 

[Torontovibe]

If you look at some of these Chicago subway stations, you can clearly see that there just isn't much to them. They obviously would have costed a fraction of what Toronto's would cost, so it's very hard to compare the 2 systems. Do you want more coverage or more comfortable stations? Of course, I want a better subway system but I would not trade our stations for Chicago's. If we had Florida's weather, it might be a different story but on cold and windy winter days, you do not want to be 4 storeys in the sky, exposed to that wind and cold. Not only that but it just looks too third world for me. The El pretty much ruins a number of streets, in the Loop. (for me) New York & Chicago can keep their ugly, noisy elevated trains but I'm so glad we went a different route. Sure, it might be taking us longer to get decent transit but I think it's well worth the wait.

Why can't they at least put some seats in those stations, along with a glass enclosed shelter, to protect from the wind? It certainly wouldn't cost much and it would make the stations so much bearable in winter. The wind at some of those stations is really strong and in some cases, there is nothing there to protect you. I think more people would use the subway if they made it a little more comfortable for the customers. I've been to Chicago in winter and summer, yet I've never seen it even close to as crowded, as Toronto's subway stations.

 

[TOareaFan]

If you look at some of these Chicago subway stations, you can clearly see that there just isn't much to them. They obviously would have costed a fraction of what Toronto's would cost, so it's very hard to compare the 2 systems. Do you want more coverage or more comfortable stations?

The answer probably is dependant on who you ask to some extent.

If you live in area currently served by our subways you probably could not imagine waiting at stations like that and would advocate for greater comfort and higher frequencies.

If you live in the many areas of Toronto not served by subways you would probably say "I'll take those stations on 15 minute frequencies".

 

[adma]

And as I suggested: just because Chicagoans and NYCers have a protective fondness for their extant elevated systems doesn't mean they'd wish or endorse something similar today for Toronto. Even *they* know that by any conventional present-day standards, said systems would be deemed unsightly, undesirable eyesores. But their own systems are not of the present day; and they've earned their gritty mythos...

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

If you look at some of these Chicago subway stations, you can clearly see that there just isn't much to them. They obviously would have costed a fraction of what Toronto's would cost, so it's very hard to compare the 2 systems. Do you want more coverage or more comfortable stations? Of course, I want a better subway system but I would not trade our stations for Chicago's. If we had Florida's weather, it might be a different story but on cold and windy winter days, you do not want to be 4 storeys in the sky, exposed to that wind and cold. Not only that but it just looks too third world for me. The El pretty much ruins a number of streets, in the Loop. (for me) New York & Chicago can keep their ugly, noisy elevated trains but I'm so glad we went a different route. Sure, it might be taking us longer to get decent transit but I think it's well worth the wait.

Why can't they at least put some seats in those stations, along with a glass enclosed shelter, to protect from the wind? It certainly wouldn't cost much and it would make the stations so much bearable in winter. The wind at some of those stations is really strong and in some cases, there is nothing there to protect you. I think more people would use the subway if they made it a little more comfortable for the customers. I've been to Chicago in winter and summer, yet I've never seen it even close to as crowded, as Toronto's subway stations.

See you say, well the stations don't look nice and say Toronto is crowded at rush hour. What does the stations being more comfortable matter during rush hour? SO what if the Stations are ugly, it doesn't matter. It's about coverage and frequency. Toronto has 1 of 2 and So does Chicago. Toronto stations are nicer yet there are so few of them. If you are there for a few minutes a day it does not matter.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

And yet we are closer to breaking even on a per rider basis than any of these other systems we've been discussing in Canada and the USA. Perhaps frequent service increases usage ...

maybe it is largely because prices are higher too?
comparing monthly passes prices and you will get an idea.

Metropasses are a ripoff. Too Bad presto is not up at all stations yet.

 

[nfitz]

Metropasses are a ripoff. Too Bad presto is not up at all stations yet.

If you use enough trips in a month that a Metropass is cheaper than using tokens (or Presto), it's a bargain.

Not sure how saving money is a rip-off.