A quick comparison of some averages* for Chicago, Paris, and London exemplifies this. In Paris, one is never more than about a 1/2 mile from a Metro (subway) station and less than 1/2 a block from a bus stop. In London, that moves up to 3/4 of a mile from an Underground station and less than a block from a bus stop, which matches Chicago. Chicago also compares favorably with London if we look at the number of people each station serves (about 19,000 for Chicago to about 23,000 for London...Paris is at about 6,500). Londoners, though, take about 132 rides per person per year compared with Chicago's 85 rides per person.
The density of the cities does affect ridership and availability. At about 40 square miles, Paris is an immensely walkable city. London, at just over 600, poses a greater challenge, but still retains some walkability. Chicago's 233 square miles of space does a little better, although some specific communities do have much better population densities and more importantly, densities of services. If Chicago were to serve a population - proportional to its area - that London does, we would house about 3,200,000 people (which we have in the past). To match Paris, we would have 12,700,000 people. With that many people in that close a space, I think we might find more efficient ways to get people around than personal vehicles.Chicago is taking steps to improve access to transit. An extension of the Red Line (the branch that runs from the northern border to a couple of miles short of the southern border and through the city center) all the way to the southern border of the city has finally shown signs of becoming reality. After taking over some abandoned freight lines to add a Pink Line most recently, the city now looks to bus rapid transit (BRT) to fill some of the other holes. The original planning for the transit system in Chicago shows the major failing; comparing it with Paris and London, one notices the spoke and hub layout that gradually misses large areas of the city. The Paris and London maps show a more evenly spread service profile. It will be almost impossible to fix this with more light rail and "L" lines, but BRT can provide similar wait times and service to light rail and can get up and running faster.
The greatest concern is that as people desire living near transit more and more in Chicago, property values will increase, and those that can least afford to live in those areas will be pushed to communities with limited access to transit. This will decrease their quality of life, either by forcing them to purchase a car, or by extending the time it takes them to get to work. Whatever moves we make to improve our transit, we need to do it quickly so that we avoid creating a further separation between those who can, and those who cannot, afford to live in our city.
* I use an admittedly imperfect way of measuring this: I took the land area of each city and divided it by the number of subway and bus stops to get an average area per stop. Then, putting a stop at the center, and a person at the edge of the area, I computed the longest distance that person would have to walk. This does not account for placing the density of the infrastructure at places where more people live, but given the scale of each city, it does provide a good starting point for comparison.
Very interesting comparison that you have presented in this article Joseph. I feel that some of the main downfalls in Chicago transit planning lies in the inability to analyse (1) emotive aspects contributing to the attractiveness of public transportation use and (2) a wholistic approach to regional planning strategies.
ReplyDelete(1) In my own observations (from travelling to 200+ cities and living in the US, Europe, and Asia)- statistics only make up a very small part of the equation when it comes to the encouraging people to give up the convenience of private transit for public methods. For Chicago- frigid winters and outdoor stations providing little shelter makes taking the train or bus significantly less attractive than a heated car. Long wait times (10-15 mins compared to less than 5 mins in other major cities) makes those winter transit journeys in Chicago even less appealing, before even considering the time that wait adds to a person’s door-to-door trip. Safety is another major factor- which in Chicago is exacerbated by the relatively low ridership (safety in numbers) and the segregated neighbourhoods. Another contributing factor is glamour- there is an intangible attractiveness to enter one of Paris’s stunning Art Nouveau stations, compared to entering a decaying steel truss with a rotting timber platform in Chicago. Surely the American fetish with car ownership as a status symbol and a cultural norm contributes greatly- whereas in Paris, a car might be considered inconvenient because of difficulty parking, traffic concerns, and high maintenance costs.
(2) It is difficult to compare Chicago to other global cities because it simply does not have the type of urban density. Paris and London transit riderships benefit from huge downtown populations, and seamlessly integrated commuter transportation options to incorporate suburban populations. In a heavily suburbanised city such as Chicago, the unfortunate operational (and blatantly physical) separation between commuter rail and urban rail makes public transit an extremely unattractive option for the immense suburban population- exacerbated further by the lack of downtown density, jobs, and urban life to attract people from the suburbs to the city on a daily basis. An average suburbanite in Paris or London is likely to take a trip to the city centre on any given day for work, shopping, nightlife, or simply to enjoy the atmosphere- while the average suburban Chicagoan would only likely make the trip downtown a few times during the summer. A congestion charge as applied in other cities might simply cause people to avoid the downtown altogether. Perhaps Chicago would be more aptly compared to LA.
All said and done, It’s very difficult to propose (let alone fund) a quick fix to urban transit woes in Chicagoland, as it is completely different kind of urban entity from most major cities- I don’t think any of the traditional remedies will work within the context of such substantial suburban sprawl- perhaps the only solution is a return to dense urban life in the city of Chicago? Easier said than legislated.