4 ms·
Chicago certainly has a subway. Sure, only a portion near downtown runs underground, while the rest is elevated (the L) but their system is the second-largest i
by deepfriedbits 8y ago
Chicago certainly has a subway. Sure, only a portion near downtown runs underground, while the rest is elevated (the L) but their system is the second-largest in the US.
- cozzyd 8y agoWell, I think technically BART and the DC Metro have more track miles, but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_transit_systems_by_ridership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_rapid_tr... the "L" narrowly has the second highest ridership.
- bunderbunder 8y agoSome of that may be a difference in focus. The L barely extends outside of the city proper, and a separate rail system almost exclusively serves the suburbs. The division of responsibilities between the rapid transit and commuter rail systems in DC and the Bay Area is different in a way that might account for both the greater total system length and the lower ridership per mile compared to Chicago's system. Or Boston's T, for that matter.
- bunderbunder 8y agoOutside of Manhattan, much of NYC's system is aboveground, too. I'm not sure it normally makes much sense to put the trains underground in any but the most densely populated areas.
- Touche 8y agoI don't want to get into an argument on the definition of "subway", but Chicago's is not like what this article describes, or what is in Manhattan.
- deepfriedbits 8y agoChicago has 11.4 miles of underground subway tunnels in use. That's larger than what is described as Cincinnati's abandoned subway in the article.