Should the CTA Build A Perimeter Subway Line? (Chicago, McHenry: neighborhood, income)

[Chi-town Native]

I've been saying this for years - the fact that to get from O'Hare to Midway you need to go into the Loop is just preposterous.

The biggest problems with the Circle Line are 1) it doesn't go out far enough, it should go to Damen at the very least, preferably Western, and 2) last I heard it wasn't even going to be a real, below-ground, subway.

[KevK]

Originally Posted by Gioobag

The biggest CTA improvement would be a non-stop connector between the Belmont Blue and Red/Brown lines. Or Fullerton/California maybe. Take your pick.

There is no money for much more, unless Obama can deliver some pork from DC (which is totally bankrupt).

If it is "shovel ready" they can get it funded.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I've been saying this for years - the fact that to get from O'Hare to Midway you need to go into the Loop is just preposterous.

The biggest problems with the Circle Line are 1) it doesn't go out far enough, it should go to Damen at the very least, preferably Western, and 2) last I heard it wasn't even going to be a real, below-ground, subway.

We generally don't built below-ground rapid transit in Chicago. The new proposed extensions of the Red, Yellow, and Orange lines aren't going to be below ground either.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

We generally don't built below-ground rapid transit in Chicago. The new proposed extensions of the Red, Yellow, and Orange lines aren't going to be below ground either.

Last story I read wasn't even describing elevated tracks, it was some sort of horrible ground level train, like where the Brown line goes through Ravenswood Manor and Albany Park.

But in the end, the subway systems make more sense. There's a reason why Rome, Paris, London, Madrid, etc all have these huge subway systems where they blanket their urban areas.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Last story I read wasn't even describing elevated tracks, it was some sort of horrible ground level train, like where the Brown line goes through Ravenswood Manor and Albany Park.

But in the end, the subway systems make more sense. There's a reason why Rome, Paris, London, Madrid, etc all have these huge subway systems where they blanket their urban areas.

Those cities also have national governments that care about funding for mass transit. its amazing how nice a system you can build if you actually have money to do so.

The advantage of the MCT is the grade-separated ROW which already exists. Obviously upgrades of various sorts would be necessary, but much of the infrastructure is already in place. Again this is helpful when you have a Federal government that generally doesn't give a crap about helping cities build mass transit because it will keep expenses low. Perhaps that will change with the Obama administration; it remains to be seen.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

Again this is helpful when you have a Federal government that generally doesn't give a crap about helping cities build mass transit because it will keep expenses low. Perhaps that will change with the Obama administration; it remains to be seen.

I hear that.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

...
But in the end, the subway systems make more sense. There's a reason why Rome, Paris, London, Madrid, etc all have these huge subway systems where they blanket their urban areas.

Yes, this is an old thread.

Yes, and the reason is that they're anywhere from 2 to 5 times as dense as most of Chicago, and as dense or up to twice as dense as even our most dense residential neighborhoods.

Excluding O'Hare and the largely industrial South Deering, and the water, Chicago has a land area of 194 square miles and a population of 2.667 million people. That's a density of 13,747 people per square mile.

Paris is about 40 square miles with about 2.2 million people, or over 54,000 people per square mile. Paris is also a national capital of a former empire, which helps immensely.

London is harder to compare because of the way its political structures work. Greater London is about three times as big as Chicago proper. Greater London is probably more comparable to Cook County than the city proper of Chicago, but how to measure the core of London is more complicated. That said, the central portions of London sometimes called "Inner London" is a little under 120 square miles with close to 3 million people. That's a density of about 25,000 people per square mile in the area most comparable to Chicago - almost double Chicago's density. London is also a national capital of a former empire, so they have that advantage.

Madrid's population is about 3.3 million people, in an area of about 80 square miles, for a density of about 41,250 people per square mile. It's also a national capital of a former empire.

Rome, also a national capital currently and of (several) former empires, has a similar population to Chicago but the area is tricky to compare. Regardless, Rome's Metro only consists of two lines (though several more are under construction) but even with the addition of those it's not remotely comparable to Paris, London or Madrid in scope, plus with just those two lines and 1/4 as many stations as Chicago, they have nearly 50% more ridership than Chicago's "L" system does.

All things considered, given our density and relatively low ridership of the existing system, we actually have, proportionately, a very good system. Sure, things can always be better, but it's much better than people give it credit for. Comparing us to Paris, transit-wise, is like saying the Eiffel tower is a scraggly, cheap imitation of the Egyptian Pyramids. Different places, different circumstances, different outcomes, both of which are great.

[jwaiter]

We were promised jet-packs.

[emathias]

Originally Posted by jwaiter

We were promised jet-packs.

I'll fly yours over this afternoon.

[Visvaldis]

An elevated rail line parallel to Harlem Ave would be great.