Talk:Chicago "L"/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Chicago "L". Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"Light Rail"

To the gentleman who keeps inserting "light rail" into this article:

Please read the misc.transport.urban-transit FAQ. "Light Rail" does not mean "lighter than commuter or intercity rail". The 'L', like the NYC Subway, DC Metro, and BART is "rapid transit". The 'L's capacity is far greater than any system commonly termed "light rail", and its rolling stock is also very different.

If you're from Chicago, your article doesn't suggest as much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.173.106 (talk • contribs) 02:17, February 18, 2004‎ (UTC)

New York City Subway

Actually considerable parts of the NYC Subway system are elevated. The parts in Manhattan were demolished but there is still plent of elevated track in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx. The difference is that Chicago still retains elevated track in the center of the city, whereas New York does not. -- Decumanus 23:58, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there are some portions of elevated track in Manhattan, but only in northern parts of it, like Harlem and Inwood.

CTA map

There are two of this file, one in the infobox, and a second one in the section right below. This is redundant; can someone edit this? 68.35.55.55 (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting namespaces

There are conflicting CTA rail namespaces being used on Wikipedia (example: Chicago 'L' is one main article and the List of Chicago El stations is another). I will be working on getting all of them to use a single name. This article will have to be moved due to the use of punctuation. --Gerald Farinas 17:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

What single name is going to be used? siafu 21:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Voting for one here would be the best idea. Other nominations should be added, if your choice is not there. --Gerald Farinas 21:49, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Vote on which name to move the article

Chicago El

Supporters

Tedernst 18:08, 3 O

ctober 2005 (UTC)

Chicago Elevated

Supporters

Gerald Farinas. With all the competing popular nicknames, I like the idea of using its formal name and redirecting all the popular nicknames to it. But if any of the other names are chosen, I'm fine with it.
siafu. I agree, but it might be better to have the more complete "Chicago Elevated Train".

Chicago 'L' (with the punctuation marks)

Supporters

Joshers 01:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC) A Google search on 18 October 2005 yielded 79,100 matches for "Chicago L" and 94,700 matches for "Chicago El". Despite this, and though I learned on my mother's knee that "El" stands for "Elevated", the CTA seems determined to market the system as the Chicago 'L', which is how every brochure and every posted map reads, right down to the single quotes. Maybe they want it to be understood as the counterpart to Boston's The T. However silly that is, it seems to me that the CTA has the authority to determine the "official" name, which Wikipedia ought to emulate, with appropriate redirects to avoid public confusion. We can expect the 'L' usage (alas) to supplant "El" as the most commonly recognized one eventually, if it hasn't done so already.
siafu 01:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC), per my statement below.
I care not whether you use punctuation or not, but it's definitely L, not El, and has been for decades.75.56.60.44 21:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
There is widespread confusion within and outside the CTA on what the punctuation marks around the L are. For some time, the CTA used apostrophes fore and aft (see picture here: CTA sign photographed by Chicagoist.com; 2002 system map photographed by Illinois Railway Museum). Note that both marks curl to the left. This supports the notion that 'L' is short for "elevated", with the leading "e" and trailing "evated" elided and replaced with apostrophes. But more recently, the CTA itself has used a pair of single quotation marks (see current map here: CTA system map; marks curling in the 6/9 pattern of a proper single quotation mark pair). This unfortunately coincides with academic scare-quotes usage, as if 'L' is intended as irony--or at the very least, British (not American) standard usage of single quotation marks to represent speech. The fact that online both apostrophes and single quotation marks use the same straight line, instead of appropriately curling (and distinct) apostrophes or single quotation marks only adds to the confusion.209.252.119.242 (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. When the first lines were being proposed and constructed in the 1880s and 1890s the Chicago newspapers used either L (unpunctuated) or "L" (with double quotes—used to indicate that it is a nickname). The usage in single quotes/apostrophes is much more recent, and seems to have been relatively restricted to the CTA's own publications. Why the CTA chose this styling is unclear, and a reliable source would be needed for any explanation to be given in the article. But I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it—whether they are single quotes or apostrophes is really irrelevant as both are rendered the same in the font used by Wikipedia.—Jeremy (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW… based on the old route maps scanned and published at Chicago-L.org[1] the CTA adopted the 'L' styling around about 1970. In many of these maps (e.g. [2], [3], [4]) it is clear that single quotes are being used. —Jeremy (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Chicago L (without the punctuation marks)

Supporters

Most people I know call it "the train". --75.179.42.252 (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Rmhermen 02:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) It is Wikipedia policy to put the article at the most common name so that most people can most often find it. Chicago Elevated is not in common use.
Lpangelrob I have never heard it referred to as "Chicago Elevated" as long as I've lived in the area. "Chicago El" would be my best guess, but it seems as if 'El' refers to how it sounds above anything else, in a strange way. ---Rob 18:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

marketing source?

What is the source of this assertion? It is currently being marketed as simply the Chicago 'L'. I can't find CTA trains referred to that way on the CTA website. Tedernst 16:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It says here : The Chicago Transit Authority runs buses and elevated/subway trains (‘L’) in the city and nearby suburbs. siafu 19:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Right you are. I've updated the page with this information and citation. Excellent! Tedernst 20:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

So looking at this citation a bit more, I notice that it's simply wrong and outdated about service hours on the 54th/Cermak branch of the Blue line. Since January of this year those trains have been running on weekends. Is that just sloppiness or does it mean we can't trust the CTA's own site for other information about the el? Tedernst 20:16, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I would say that it's a function of government workers doing government-quality work and not updating when they should, i.e., just sloppiness. siafu 22:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Today on the train I was paying more attention to the signs than I usually do and noticed the same as yesterday which is that there's a new CTA logo kind of thing, a circle with CTA in it. And no 'L' or El or el or elevated or anything. I think the source is outdated for marketing as the 'L' as well. Tedernst 09:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

CTA today

As a Chicag'an born and bred, and a bit of a railfan, I'd love to support the assertion that Chicago "L" is the canonical name. I do not believe that is still the case. The CTA or CTA trains is the most commonly used terminology today, with subway running a close second, although many people certainly still know and recognize the Chicago "L" usage. Do note that it's always double quotation marks, never single, although for reasons unknown the CTA website has recently adopted this usage. Most signage used an oversized italicized serif "L", and a number of these signs still exist on viaducts and the like. Most station signage is simply directional, with an inconspicuous CTA logo. I'm reluctant to force a name change given the recent vote, but I thought I'd add this point of view. --Dhartung | Talk 05:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I grew up being corrected by friends who assert that the "subway" in Chicago is the proper term for the underground pedways in the Loop.74.3.18.178 (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Circle line color

What is the probable color of the proposed circle line?? Pink is most likely according to process of elimination. Georgia guy 01:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

As it is a circle line, it likely will stay that will. So not affiliated with any color. Neal (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC).

Loop area

The article says " the "Loop", roughly 500m long east-to-west and 900m long north-to-south." Besides this being unhelpfully in a measuring system alien to the users of the train but is the Loop really as small as this? Rmhermen 00:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

It's close to those dimensions, if they aren't totally accurate. Google maps (no idea how accurate) says .4 miles from Lake/Wells to Lake/Wabash (that's 640 meters, yes?) and .6 miles from Lake/Wabash to Van Buren/Wabash (960 meters). Tedernst | talk 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the "Loop" proper (the area bounded by the elevated train tracks) is really that small. The downtown area commonly known as the Loop is much larger and is bounded by the Chicago River on the north and west, Lake Michigan on the east, and Roosevelt Road on the south. For example, the Sears Tower is often described as being "in the Loop" but it is not within the area bounded by the elevated train tracks; it is just outside it.162.84.151.208 (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)Larry Siegel

That's an awful low street for the informal southern border, Larry. Most people I know would say the Loop as a neighborhood ends at Congress. After that, it's the South Loop (even if the official Community Area combines the two). Maybe I'm biased because I live in the West Loop, though.74.3.18.178 (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Additions to this Article

I would really like to see this article expanded or another article created to include more information on the history and grown and decline of the 'L' system overtime. Does anyone want to take on this task? GuyFromChicago 16:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Many parts of Chicago-L.org can be used as an important source to build a history summarization, but it seems to me that it will literally take years before the series of Wikipedia articles on the El can match what they have on that site. —Rob (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, this article has drastically improved. Maybe it might come to a point that a WikiProject need be started to boost progress. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • lol, internet)} 00:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What about a section explaining the use of the 'L' in pop culture? I'm thinking specifically here of stuff like "High Fidelity" or the parts of the Blues Bros. where they almost crash into it on their way to the shopping mall. It just seems like there should be more stuff out there on it seeing as how it's sort of a symbol for the city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.9.247 (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I was considering adding a bit on the double-naming the CTA uses. For instance, the Blue Line alone has two stations named Western and two stations named Harlem, which must be incredibly confusing for first-time users. And there are four stations named Pulaski, three named Cicero, three named Clinton, ect. The CTA also puts both(!) of its "Chicago" stations outside the loop, so if a non-English-speaker decides to take the L to "Chicago" expecting to end up in the loop, he or she ends up miles from where they expect to be. However, I'm not sure if there is an appropriate section to point out this most unusual aspect of the L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Republicofjosh01 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You describe the "Gold Line" - but there is no mention of the "Gray Line" Plan for the Metra Electric District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.42.226 (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a section addressing the finances of the "L." In particular, revenue from fares, operating budget, and amount of public subsidies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.255.98 (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Category for renaming

The "Gold Line" in the Chicago 'L' article is a 2008 offshoot of the original 1996 Gray Line proposal, which was created by one person - not a group; however it is mentioned only in reference - and not by name: http://www.box.com/shared/jqvpx489un

Much work was applied to refining the Gray Line during those 12 years, and hundreds of Agency Meetings were attended at CTA, Metra, RTA, CATS, NIPC, as well as many Elected Officials lobbied by one person.

http://alwaysintransit.typepad.com/hyde_park_urbanist/2007/10/gray-line-lite.html

The Gray Line continues to be lobbied to Elected Officials, and to the involved Agencies; and a tentative Opening Date has been set for January 1st, 2015 - Concurrent with the implementation of the new State Law required Inter-Agency Fare System: www.grayline.20m.com

Any suggestions on how to resolve this discrepancy? Mikep621chicago (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes; provide independent secondary sources on the topic. Speciate (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In what context do you mean "independent"? Neither the Chicago Sun-Times or the Hyde Park Urbanist are in any way affiliated or associated with the Gray Line Project. The Sun-Times article confirms the origin date, the Urbanist article shows where they changed the projects name (WITHOUT the permission of the Original Author). Are these not "independent" sources? And if they are not - what type of sources do you mean? (Mikep621chicago (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

Here are links to a 2003 Study by Center for Neighborhood Technology and Chicagoland Transportation and Air Quality Commission, of the Major Capital Projects then submitted to CATS (now CMAP)in 2003: http://www.cnt.org/tsp/trans/ctaqc/projectscoring.htm

Here are the Scoring Criteria for the Study: http://www.cnt.org/tsp/pdf/Criteria%20Project%20Scoring%20-%202003.pdf

Here are the results of the Study: http://www.cnt.org/tsp/pdf/Criteria%20Project%20Scoring%20-%20Project%20List.pdf In which the Gray Line (Grey here) E A R N S by Cumulative Total the Top Rank in the Study (5 years before being hijacked as the "Gold Line" by various South Side Organizations).

And more recently in their "Getting on Track" publication, CNT/CTAQC ranked the GRAY LINE as "the most sensible and worthy transit idea out of A L L transportation projects being proposed for Chicagoland" (Read Pages 13 through 20 - See top of Page 19): http://www.box.com/files#/files/0/f/57623604/1/f_552516092

Are these independent sources? (Mikep621chicago (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC))

The problem here is that none of these sources specify that the Gold Line is derivative of (or even a copy of) the Gray Line proposal. Without that, making any such statements (no matter how obvious they may or may not be) would be a violation of the No Original Research policy. Lost on Belmont (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://alwaysintransit.typepad.com/hyde_park_urbanist/2007/10/gray-line-lite.html

Thursday, 11 October 2007

The Gold Line Proposal

(Gray Line is the name Mike Payne from Chatham has given to a similar but somewhat more ambitious proposal than mine. You can read about his idea here ( http://community-2.webtv.net/GLRTS/GRAYLINECONVERSION/ ). Mike's been indefatigable about pushing his proposal and we owe him a great debt, but the name of the proposal below was changed from Gray Line Lite to Gold Line in November of 2008.)

What does "the name of the proposal was changed from Gray Line Lite (derived from Gray Line) to Gold Line in November of 2008" in the above quoted text mean?? (Mikep621chicago (talk) 11:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC))

Anyone out there - the last responses took less than a day.

I also looked up the No Original Research Policy, and there I became aware of the Neutral Point of View Policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

There is N O "Neutral point of view" at play here - I feel I am battling intense "Gold Line" supporters, just like the Organizations who "WE own H I M a great debt - BUT THE NAME OF "THE" ( H I S from 1 9 9 6 ) PROJECT BELOW WAS C H A N G E D FROM GRAY LINE LITE TO GOLD LINE IN NOVEMBER OF 2 0 0 8" (twelve years later): http://www.box.com/files/0/f/57623604/1/f_552514760#/files/0/f/57623604/1/f_552514760/0/comment

How long does it take to interpret that statement - citing this "Neutral Point Of View Policy"?? (Mikep621chicago (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC))

btw: I've decided the name of this Forum should be changed from "Wikipedia" to "Webpedia" - how long do you think it will take to make the required alterations??

Note. I have removed a couple of newspaper articles that were posted in full to this thread. Posting full newspaper articles is a breach of copyright; please don't do it.—Jeremy (talk) 13:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please, remain calm. Angry sentiments rarely get results. You provided multiple links in your comment about external sources that did not address the matter at hand. After going through several of these, I jumped to the conclusion that all the links were the same and stopped reading. I thus missed the one you've recently highlighted. That was my mistake, and I apologize. Politely pointing this link out would have been the best way to go about it.

Given the link you've cited, I can now go ahead and say that the Gold Line is a derivative project of the Gray Line (which was never in any doubt, by the way) and I will change the heading to Metra Electric service conversion. But because the Gray/Gold Line proposals aren't actually 'L' proposals, I'm going to move this section to Chicago Transit Authority and Metra Electric District where they will be appropriate. Lost on Belmont (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for getting angry, and Thank You for your consideration and decision; I am OK with how you've handled ite (however I would suggest a link to the Gray Line in the "References" section of the Metra Electric District Page (I will explain there).

If you wish - I will keep you updated as the Gray Line will be an Poster Exhibitor at the Transport Chicago Conference this June: http://www.transportchicago.org/

and sometime this year I will be addressing the Illinois State Senate in Springfield on the reasons for, and implementation of Senate Bill 2572: http://e-lobbyist.com/gaits/view/358476 (Mikep621chicago (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC))

Citations needed

This article is in need of a References section. I realise that much of the service information can be found on transitchicago.com, and much of the other information is likely from chicago-L.org, but there are parts of the article (for instance the possible future expansion part of the 'Expansion plans' section) that need cited to specific soures. --JeremyA 04:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

'L' is for elevated or 'L' is for Loop

Regardless of which is correct, the current language used to present the viewpoint seems unnecessarily biased and loaded. Once it is determined what 'L' stands for (if it even does stand for anything in particular), the appropriate sections should be rewritten. -- SmokeDetector47^{( TALK )} 21:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted once again. Not only do I believe that the information being added by the anon editor is incorrect, but it is also being placed in the article with no regard for text around it, making the first paragraph of the article nonsensical.

Some sources:

CTA (they run the trains): CTA’s train system is called the ‘L’, short for "elevated."
Chicago-L.org (I know of no more extensive source of L history/facts): The key thing to realize is that it is a shortened version of "elevated railroad"
The Encyclopedia of Chicago: Chicago's rapid transit system has been known as the “L” since before the first line opened in 1892. (note; the Union Loop was not constructed until 1895–1897).
Cudahy, B (1990) Cash, Tokens and Transfers: A History of Urban Mass Transit in North America. Fordham Univ Press ISBN 0823212785 p70–71: it should be noted that, in Chicago, popular usage renders the abbreviated name of an elevated rapid transit line as "L," while in New York the form is "el." This is a current distinction; years ago, both usages were common in New York. (you can check this quote at books.google.com)

In trying to word a compromise, I have tied to find sources that backup the anon editors assertion—not only am I yet found a single source for this, the Donald Miller "City of the Century" that the anon mentions does not include the quote that the anon is attributing to Donald Miller (from what he wrote, I thought he was quoting from the book). --JeremyA 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll find you a source backing up my assertion. Both Miller's "City of the Century" and "City of Big Shoulders" by Robert G. Spinney assert that when Charles Yerkes began buying up existing Chicago rail lines and building new ones to form a complete track around the downtown financial district he created a "Loop" which spawned the term for both the district and the train system. The reason that "officially" it's L and not El, is because of this (believe me, I was baffled that the CTA web site got it wrong). I am not a frequent Wikipedia user, so pardon my article editing difficulties, but I got into an argument about the origin of L with someone the other day who insisted that Wikipedia stated it was for "elevated train" and as an extremely long time student of Chicago history, I know this to be a common belief, but it's false. I decided I'd attempt to set the record straight. I realize that there is a plethora of material out there to disagree with me, but a word spelled wrong in the dictionary is still spelled wrong. If you find my wording nonsensical, that's fine, I'll locate the exact passages for you and you can word it better.

-The anonymous Chicago historian

City of The Century actually correctly states that the district called "The Loop" was named as such before the elevated train system existed, as it was named for a loop made by the street car lines in 1882. —JeremyA 23:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV template. The issue being discussed here is a contention over a particular point of fact (whether L stands for Loop or Elevated), and has nothing at all to do with neutrality. siafu 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The original revision had content which was clearly biased to one side of the issue and eliminated the other viewpoint, which warranted the template, but that's since been corrected. -- SmokeDetector47^{( TALK )} 23:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

CTA Rail maps

Hey, I'm trying to make maps for the CTA Rail lines, and I was wondering what people thought. At right is my first attempt. It is obviously an attempt to make the map more realistic than the CTA spider-ish diagrams are. I would like to hear comments and such. I did not put the station names in in an attempt to make it look good at small sizes. Shorelander 00:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I like it!

I really like it. One thing that i think it really needs is a close up in like box (like the offical CTA one) of the downtown/Loop. It looks a bit congested there. -1348- 07:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to use ideas and/or guidelines provided by WP:USRD/MTF and the corresponding Interstate (and state, and U.S.) shields in Commons. —Rob (talk) 22:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting Timeline

This articles reads that the "L" dates back to 1892, making it the third oldest in the U.S. behind NY and Boston (1898). It might just be me, but the year 1892 occurred before the year 1898...

Usually what you do is when you see an error - you fix it. Then in your comment you explain your reasoning. If you forgot to put your reasoning or there isn't enough room, then you can start a new section in the talk page, explaining your reasoning for correct it. And when people still revert to the error, you revert with the reason "See talk page." And so and so forth. Neal (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC).

The confusion is probably due to the fact that Boston has the oldest underground rail system (subway), but NYC and Chicago had elevated rails earlier. I think Chicago has the third-oldest underground tunnel. Frankg (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Punctuation

The article is full of inconsistent use of 'single quotes' and "double quotes." There ought to be some consistency.

Yeah, despite the CTA's usage, it's really weird in American English to put single quotes around anything. I suppose if I had my druthers I'd either remove the quotes entirely, or use double quotation marks. But since this appears to have been hashed out in painful detail already, I won't change the existing article, and I'll follow what appears to be the majority consensus of using single quotation marks.

I've been through the article and edited it for consistency. Whatever the styling used in the article title the rest of the article should be consistent with it except for those parts of the article that discuss the different stylings, or when sources that use a different styling are being quoted. One thing that I noticed is that there is an inconsistent use of punctuation around the name. If a comma or period fall after the term 'L' should it appear out-with the quotes (as it does on the CTA website) or within the quotes (as, I think, the rules of American grammar would suggest)? —Jeremy (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Outdated link on Ref note #2

{{editsemiprotected}} Note 2's link is outdated. It should be "http://www.transitchicago.com/riding_cta/service_overview.aspx" --Mistakefinder (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Done -- IRP ☎ 22:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Image question

I just saw this image here, that is said to be on the Red Line(File:CTA waiting on the platform.jpg). I see signs for Linden (CTA) on the Purple Line and Harlem/Lake (CTA) on the Green Line. Why is that, and which station is this really from? ----DanTD (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The train approaching in the image is indeed a Red Line train to Howard. The station is Randolph/Wabash Outer Loop, which explains the Evanston and Lake Street signs. This was undoubtedly taken while CTA was doing work on the subway tracks and had the Red Line trains routed over the top between Cermak-Chinatown and Fullerton. The marker lights (orange-orange) match up with the destination sign. Lost on Belmont (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Lost is right. I added this to the image description. --Dschwen 19:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Chicago "L"/Archive 1/GA1

Street level images

Should we have some street level images such as one of these?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Image of route map

The image of the route map that's currently on the page is a bit useless. Even at the highest res offered of 2000px, it still isn't possible to read any of the print or symbols, making it effectively useless for illustrating anything but a schematic of the general layout. I've had a very quick look online but can't find any copyright-free alternatives; as well as not being knowledgable about the system or the area, I'm also not au fait with the copyright issues here (other than that they are mucked about with only at one's peril).

I;ll keep looking but if anyone in a better position than I can find and add a better diagram, it would be of great advantage to the article. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the current map has bad visibility. The problem seems to have arisen when this map got replaced with an SVG image; the other one is at least visible at high resolution. I know the system, but I'm not very good with creating images, so I can't really help fix the SVG. All I can suggest is that the original image be put back in until someone can find a more suitable alternative. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't help that the library MediaWiki uses to convert SVGs to PNG is buggy—it isn't kerning the fonts properly which is making some letter combinations appear really squished. Try viewing the SVG natively and zooming in (Ctrl +); it's a little clearer that way. But regardless, the PNG conversion is quite readable to me at 1000px. The font sizes are quite similar to the official map anyway—if professional graphic design folks can't do any better, what hope does an amateur like me have?—and certainly more readable than more complex schematics like New York's, for example.
I might play around with the image sometime this week and see if I can get the spacing right to up the font size a point or two globally. Might have to re-arrange the Loop inset to everything to look right, not to mention the newly renamed "Harold Washington Library-State/Van Buren" station, which is a truly ridiculous name. —BorgHunter (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, I embiggened the fonts and doubled the nominal size. Is this version better? —BorgHunter (talk) 01:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

2nd oldest system?

I've heard (from a Boston guided tour) that Boston's MBTA Green Line is the oldest. The Wikipedia article on History of rapid transit also states that, although the date of the line (1897) is later than the 1892 than in this article. Please look into it. I think I heard an early date for Boston but not sure. --Mistakefinder (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Boston had the first subway in 1897, but it did not have the first rapid transit system. New York opened an elevated rapid transit system in the 1860s, but didn't have a subway until 1904. Chicago also opened an elevated line first in 1892, and didn't open its first subway until 1943. So Boston had the first subway but the third rapid transit system. Adding to the confusion, Boston had electric streetcars in 1889 (source); this branch became part of the Green Line eventually, but it was then a streetcar rather than rapid transit, and is to this day light rail. (The dates are mostly from the articles on the various systems; I can't find a source that compares them all.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Station name parentheticals

It would appear that the articles about CTA stations are not following the de facto standard when it comes to the parenthetical at the end of station names. That standard is [Name] ([system] station). For example:

For CTA stations, this would involve a rename of all CTA station articles to add "station" to the parenthetical, thus Howard (CTA) would become Howard (CTA station). Of course, redirects would be created on the old names in the process. Unless there are any really strong objections, I'll complete this in a couple of days. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that Howard station or Howard CTA station might be more in line with the naming schemes used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains.—Jeremy (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

For rapid transit specifically, your suggestions don't seem to follow the convention. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Move to 'L'?

The name of the system, as we use it throughout this article, is 'L' not Chicago 'L'. As 'L' is currently a redirect to Chicago 'L' I think we should get rid of the unnecessary disambiguation.—Jeremy (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. This also seems to be the nomenclature used by the CTA, which just uses 'L' on its website (such as here, for instance). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 06:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Works for me as well. Don't think I know of any instance where someone said "I remember riding the Chicago 'L'." Lost on Belmont (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Calling the article "The 'L'" is unnecessarily confusing to people who've never been to Chicago and have no idea what the system is called. Calling it "Chicago 'L'" at least gives some context. It's sort of how "New York Subway" is called "New York City Subway," even though most people don't actually call it that. --Strannik (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose it is standard when talking about various train networks to indicate the city and the name of the system, which is almost universally adopted not only throughout Wikipedia, but in most books about trains. What locals call the system is not really a good benchmarks; the Londoners call their system the "tube" and Parisians call theirs the "metro", yet the articles are 'London Underground' and 'Paris Métro', respectively. I have one book in my bookshelf about the system, and it is called 'The Chicago "L"'. As Strannik also comments, the term 'L' is extremely difficult to understand out of context, and is quite confusing for people without specialized or local knowledge. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per Arsenikk. Local terms are often not unique as well, like the Paris metro and the DC metro; some portions of the MTA train system in NYC are also informally called "the L" as well, being elevated trains. siafu (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Official name

The article states that "The Chicago rapid-transit system is officially nicknamed the 'L'", but is there an official name for the system? If there isn't one, the article should mention that. howcheng {chat} 19:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ridership

"On average 725,355 people ride the 'L' each weekday, 467,557 each Saturday, and 303,069 each Sunday"

I know there's a ref on this, but in spite of this it sounds low.

"However, the CTA divides actual riders by roughly 1.2 to count riders who transfer between lines, putting the total number of riders at about 162.7 million."

To be sure I understand this - it appears to be saying that actual ridership is lower than the daily numbers quoted earlier?

My confusion grows. How is it that a city that is much larger, denser and better served by trackage has lower ridership? The article simply does not give any details about this, beyond a non-specific blanket statement about national statistics. There is a considerable section on the movement of the ridership around the system, from south to north over time, but again it fails to provide any reason for overall usage.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, those figures were five years old, but since the new ones are just as low, your point stands. I assume you're comparing the 'L' to Washington or Boston, since they're the only smaller systems with higher ridership. There are probably all kinds of cultural/regional factors explaining this (and IMO, Washington at least has a much nicer system), but this is true for most US cities; for instance, Dallas has the largest light rail system in the US and is 7th in light rail ridership, behind several smaller cities. As to why ridership is so low in general, keep in mind that with the exception of New York, most people still prefer to drive in the US (which is well-documented), which keeps ridership somewhat low. Since little of this is likely to be specific to Chicago, and may also be original research, it's probably not worth mentioning in this article. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that there is a veritable library addressing increasing ridership, if my home town of Toronto is any indication. Such discussion can be very useful for readers who are not from Chicago. If commonly mentioned reasons are "crime ridden" or "bad schedules", it gives the reader extremely valuable information about the system that won't be covered in technical literature. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Fares

A section on how much fare is charged, how fares are paid, and the fare structure in general needs to be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.86.240.249 (talk) 23:47, May 10, 2007 (UTC)

New Chicago 'L' navigation box?

{{navbox
| name   = Chicago 'L'
| state  = show
| title  = [[Chicago 'L']]
| group1 = Lines
|  list1 = [[Red Line (Chicago Transit Authority)|{{color box|#{{CTA color|Red}}}} Red Line]]{{·}} [[Orange Line (Chicago Transit Authority)|{{color box|#{{CTA color|Orange}}}} Orange Line]]{{·}} [[Yellow Line (Chicago Transit Authority)|{{color box|#{{CTA color|Yellow}}}} Yellow Line]]{{·}} [[Green Line (Chicago Transit Authority)|{{color box|#{{CTA color|Green}}}} Green Line]]{{·}} [[Blue Line (Chicago Transit Authority)|{{color box|#{{CTA color|Blue}}}} Blue Line]]{{·}} [[Purple Line (Chicago Transit Authority)|{{color box|#{{CTA color|Purple}}}} Purple Line]]{{·}} [[Brown Line (Chicago Transit Authority)|{{color box|#{{CTA color|Brown}}}} Brown Line]]{{·}} [[Pink Line (Chicago Transit Authority)|{{color box|#{{CTA color|Pink}}}} Pink Line]]{{·}} [[The Loop (CTA)|Loop]]

| group3 = Defunct lines
|  list3 = Stock Yards {{·}} Kenwood {{·}} Normal Park {{·}} Market Street {{·}} Metropolitan Main Line {{·}} Garfield Park {{·}} Westchester {{·}} Humboldt Park {{·}} Northwest

| group4 = Stations
|  list4 = [[List of Chicago 'L' stations|Current stations]]{{·}} [[List of closed Chicago 'L' stations|Former stations]]

| group5 = Rolling stock
|  list5 = [[Chicago 'L' rolling stock]]

| group6 = Operators
|  list6 = [[Chicago Transit Authority]] {{·}} [[Chicago Rapid Transit Company]] {{·}} [[South Side Elevated Railroad]] {{·}} [[Lake Street Elevated Railroad]] {{·}} [[Metropolitan West Side Elevated Railroad]] {{·}} [[Northwestern Elevated Railroad]]

| group7 = Other
|  list7 = [[Chicago Central Area Transit Plan]]{{·}} [[Mid-City Transitway]]
}}

I've noticed that we don't have anything around here that allows one to navigate all of the Chicago 'L' pages easily. Currently one is required to hunt for related pages (the "See also" section excludes a number of things probably due to WP:OVERLINK). I went ahead and created one based upon what they're using for NYC Subway pages. Trying to get some feedback on if this is liked or not, what changes should be made, what pages it should go on, etc. Lost on Belmont (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea. I've been planning to write articles on some of the defunct lines (as an aside, those should probably be linked), so I would have had to rework the line template eventually anyway and was looking into something like this. But you did a much better job of it than I would have. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added redlinks for all the former branches (and added Randolph and Cuyler which I keep forgetting about) as suggested. I wasn't sure that these would ever be made into articles but now that I know better I've gone ahead with your suggestion. Since nobody seems to have any objections yet I'm going to go ahead and make this the current template. Given the nature of the new one I really think that this should go on all of the Chicago 'L' pages (all stations included) but I figured I'd say something first in case someone throws a fit and starts reverting like mad. All pages anyone? Lost on Belmont (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great idea and nice work. I would have said that "closed" or "disused" is a more accurate term than "defunct", but I am not certain of this, so I'll leave it for other people to figure out. Otherwise, in the long run there should be articles for each of the classes of rolling stock, perhaps these could be added (either as red or black links). As for red links, it isn't that important if they are linked or not, as once they are written someone can add the link. But if they are red-linked, there is a higher chance someone will create at least a stub for them. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

looks good, but I removed the nowrap from the lines since they were not wrapping on a narrow screen. 174.56.57.138 (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Gold Line

It was announced that the CTA will probably design the Gold Line to The Loop, Hyde Park, and South Chicago. It is something I came up with, since my future dream is to run a transportation business for citizens!! I know I'm not suppose to only talk about the article, but I always wanted to run the CTA!! If Gold Line goes into service, it will serve: The Loop, Museum Campus, Bronzeville and Douglas, Hyde Park, South Shore, and South Chicago. Here is the main source on the proposal: [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by OZODOR (talk • contribs) 22:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Chicago 'L' stations page expansion

Recently, I have been expanding the Chicago 'L' station articles by creating separate sections in the article because of the "short information" in the articles! It would be helpful if you other helpful users can help with the expansion project to make most of the articles look cited and expanded! Thanks! The Smell of Magic 19:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Time Out is no authority on Chicago

Citing Time Out Chicago as an example of exceptional usage is absurd. Time Out Chicago is not a local publication. It may use some writers local to Chicago, but it is not a local organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.8.118.66 (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Title of article

Does this article have the right title? The Google search

"chicago 'l'" site:www.transitchicago.com

gives "About 30 results" while

"cta 'l'" site:www.transitchicago.com

gives "About 353 results". Present title might be a bit like calling London Underground the London Tube.Nankai (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

...on the other hand, Wikipedia:Official names gives some guidance on these matters...Nankai (talk) 08: 32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

New Super Luigi U

I'm not sure if you know but the train has recently received a makeover with Luigi-theme wallpaper. Where in the article should this be inserted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.71.171.204 (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chicago "L"/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

NPOV discussions underway but nearing GA quality in article scope, needs more references and an overall history of the system.

Last edited at 14:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC). Substituted at 14:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

30Sep13 crash on Blue line

On 30Sep13 an unmanned 4 car train left the Forest Park yard and crashed into a loaded train stopped at the Harlem station. Reports are that the unmanned train stopped for several safety devices, then restarted. Unmanned train was inbound on outbound tracks. Cars 3177 and 3171 impacted, 3177 may have been the unmanned car. The motorman exited cab and warned passengers in at least the first car of approaching train.

Two cars of runaway were planned to be towed to Skokie shops. NTSB reports of 4Oct2013 refer to water and damage to electrical system. NTSB suggests chocks and other procedure changes. Victim lawsuit has been filed already.

dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/2013/wls_100413_ntsb-cta.pdf Sammy D III (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Already covered in Blue Line (Chicago Transit Authority)#History (final paragraph). —Jeremy (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A "World Fair" in Chicago, 1890?

"...practicality had been demonstrated in 1890 on the "intramural railway" at the World Fair that had been held in Chicago." What is this 'World Fair'? Not the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893? But what?-Wetman (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The 1890 date is incorrect. The fair mentioned is indeed the Columbian Exposition. Lost on Belmont^3200N (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per request Mike Cline (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Chicago 'L' → Chicago "L" – WP style is to use double quote marks, not single. And most sources, including those cited in the article, use double quotes. It's not clear how this ended up with single quotes, given that sources and our MOS both go the other way. So let's fix it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

While I personally prefer the double quotes, CTA has been using single quotes in public documents for at least the past 20 years. That's where the name here comes from. Historically, double were more common. Lost on Belmont^3200N_1000W (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. But WP style is not to follow CTA, is it? Dicklyon (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No, it's to follow the sources. And as noted in the article, such sources as the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times (the city's two main newspapers) us the single quotes in modern usage. The problem here is many sources for the article are older, from before the single quote convention became settled. Check the talk page archives as well for prior discussion.oknazevad (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The cited article from the Tribune] uses double quotes; I removed the erroneous claim from the article. The Sun-Times is not cited, as far as I can see, but what I can find on it uses no quote marks at all. The talk archive has the bit on "The usage in single quotes/apostrophes is much more recent, and seems to have been relatively restricted to the CTA's own publications." So I'm unclear on what you're trying to tell us. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

But if CTA, who has total responsibility for operating the 'L', officially uses single quotes (whose website is a wp:primary source), then what good would it be to follow the wp:conventions used in the other wp:secondary sources? Shouldn't we always be following the conventions of the primary source? Or is WP:MOS always right? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't we almost always prefer secondary sources over primary sources, per WP:WPNOTRS? Not that this is a content issue, though. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I think we should use the name claimed by the subject, when in doubt. For years, this logic has prevailed at Hillary Rodham Clinton.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

So the "L" has its own opinion on this matter? I invite it to comment here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

VROOM VRROMOOOOOM VROOOOOMOOOOM VROOM VROOM VROM VROM Next station: Madison/Wabash SCREEEEEEETCH -- L 15:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Cautious support - this looks much, much better to me, but I don't want to go against the common name (without caring at all about the official name). Red Slash 18:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The double quote seems to be the much more common styling, if that's what you mean. A few articles (like this one in the Trib) mix and match; nobody thinks it's a different name. Dicklyon (talk) 06:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Support—Even if were to outsource our style decisions to one source, CTA, they and other single-quote users have their own rules on straight/curly glyphs, fonts and font-sizes. Single quotes look pretty awful in WP's font and straight glyphs. Also, majority US usage is double quotes, like WP's house style. Tony (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Support since so many sources use the double quotes, which makes it obviously OK for wikipedia to follow the usual style and do the same. 66.235.50.168 (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Support per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"L" versus "EL" for Elevated

It seems to me, having grown up in Chicago and having a particular bent for proper English usage, the article mentions "L" consistently throughout for the abbreviation of "Elevated" railway. Based on my personal experience, the proper term is spelled "EL" and pronounced as "EL" for elevated. Several other wiki articles refer back to this original description, including related topics like "CTA" and "The Loop" which describe sections of elevated tracks in Chicago. I would vote to move/change all the quote "L" references to "EL" for Elevated.

72.66.2.143 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be incorrect. Read the article, particularly the Nickname section oknazevad (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chicago "L". Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140714133728/http://www.northshoremag.com/cgi-bin/ns-article?article=/homegarden/06-03-movin.html to http://www.northshoremag.com/cgi-bin/ns-article?article=/homegarden/06-03-movin.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chicago "L". Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction

From Chicago "L"'s lede:

"Chicago's "L" provides 24-hour service on some portions of its network, being one of only four rapid transit systems in the United States (the Chicago "L", the New York City Subway, PATH, and Philadelphia's PATCO Speedline) to do so."

From PATCO Speedline's lede: PATCO Speedline operates 24 hours a day, one of only six U.S. rapid transit systems (the others being the New York City Subway, Staten Island Railway, the Red and Blue Lines of the Chicago 'L', the PATH lines, and certain lines of the Minneapolis-St. Paul METRO) to do so.

Something seems to be off here.-217.248.11.96 (talk) 10:55, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The difference is counting the Staten Island Railway as a separate system or not. Whomever wrote that bit here must have overlooked that one. PATCO is also incorrect due to one person who kept adding Minneapolis-St. Paul to different articles. Those are light rail, not rapid transit. Both articles should say five. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the PATCO lead. oknazevad (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Chicago fixed as well. Lost on Belmont ^3200N_1000W (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chicago "L". Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202191007/http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_2599.html to http://www.fta.dot.gov/planning/newstarts/planning_environment_2599.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chicago "L". Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Advantages of Douglas Rerouting

The article claims that the rerouting of the Douglas branch from the Dearborn subway to the Loop was a win-win change as far as service congestion was concerned, but it seems to me to have been more of a trade-off.

Certainly the Congress branch passengers came out ahead. The service on their line would have to have been nearly doubled to maintain headways on Dearborn/O'Hare. But for the Douglas branch passengers, wouldn't it have been "out of the frying pan onto the fire", replacing a merge into one other branch with a merge into the crowded and complicated Loop? And what of the effect on the other Loop services? Or is the Loop less congested than the service patterns would suggest? Babybaby0 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Skip-Stop Service

I [a New Yorker] was surprised to discover that the pervasive Chicago skip-stop service I remembered had vanished without a trace. I'm grateful to the author of this article for providing the chronology and motivations involved.

I'm curious about where else this type of "expressoid" service exists. New York tried it on two routes: the upper Broadway line of the Division A ["IRT" to my fellow codgers] West Side line, north of where it diverges from the other West Side routes; and the Jamaica Elevated Division B ["BMT" for this route] line. Both were/are rush-hour, peak-direction-only services.

The former split the route designated as "1" into "1" and "9" services. Of course the rush-hour "1" was no more 1-ish than the "9" was, and this was a source of great confusion to tourists as well as some New Yorkers. I often think this was a part of the reason for the discontinuation of the service [I'm too lazy to look up the dates]. Designations of "1" for all-stops service and "1A" and "1B" for skip-stop would have been far better, but our dearly loved MTA somewhere along the way developed an ideological commitment to single-character route designations.

The Jamaica skip-stop service, which splits the all-stops J service into J and Z skip-stop, still exists. It engenders the same confusion for the same reason [i.e., the overloading of the base "J" designation], but there are far fewer tourists and occssional riders involved and the locals [no pun intended] seem to have learned to cope.

Anyway, I'm wondering whether our J/Z service might be the only remaining vestige in the country of Chicago's bold experiment. Babybaby0 (talk) 15:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, the Market–Frankford Line in Philadelphia has rush hour skip-stop service, so the J/Z aren't the only ones left. The 9 train was actually discontinued because it turns out it didn't save anyone any time. Any time made up by skipping stops was lost by waiting for the correct train as the alternates between 1 trains and 9 trains. The end result was a total time for getting to the embarking station to the departing station that was essentially identical. I'm surprised the others remnants of the pattern haven't shown the same issue.

That said, Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing edits to article content, not the subject of the article. Just something to keep in mind. oknazevad (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Is the Chicago "L" actually a light rail system.

I think that the L, instead of being rapid transit, is actually a light rail system. What evidences this is as follows: The trainsets are of narrow loading gauge, short cars, and each trainset are composed of two cars each, and frequently two trainsets are coupled to form a train composed of two cars or more, characteristic of a light rail system. The presence of several at-grade level crossings are also present in light rail, and rapid transit never has any, with rare exceptions having only one or two.

To show this in the main page, the fact has to be placed like this:

Despite the [US transport department name] classifying the "L" as rapid transit, the design of the trains and the presence of several at grade level crossings make it more analogous to light rail. VivaBlondie2000 (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:ORIGINAL. Cards84664 02:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No, not at all.

Firstly, what Cards said. Your personal conclusions are inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia talk pages are not the place to present original discussion.

As for the idea, we have definitive and authoritative industry standard references (the UITP and APTA) that unambiguously categorize the Chicago "L" as rapid transit. Indeed, it's one of the oldest and most defining systems of the type. While the presence of some grade crossings is not ideal, the idea that "rapit transit never has any" is false; London and Tokyo have them as well. Neither of your other arguments hold any water at all. The use of married pair train cars is not unique to light rail. At all. Indeed, the cars are in no way light rail like in the least, and are highly similar to other rapid transit systems, such as New York's A Division, Boston' Blue Line, or London, which has cars of similar size on the deep tube lines.

I'm sorry, but this entire proposal is just incorrect in facts and conclusions. oknazevad (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Although I know that editors can't put original research, I'm afraid you didn't read my entire argument; although I know that a few exceptional systems do have grade crossings, I put "with rare exceptions having one or two"; as for the L, the usage of grade crossings is widespread. And although married pairs isn't unique to light rail (although it is common), I put other facts that say otherwise; the length and size of the cars (narrow loading gauge and shorter than usual lengths). And although the UITP and the APTA classify the L as rapid transit, not every official source can be correct; in Chile, for example, the official operator of the Valparaíso Metro (Empresa de los Ferrocarriles del Estado) states that the system is rapid transit, when in reality it is a commuter rail line; infrequent trains, several grade crossings and long distances between stations all contribute to this. VivaBlondie2000 (talk) 21:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Just because you think you're correct, that doesn't mean the rules don't apply to you. You will be blocked from editing if you continue with the original research. (WP:LISTEN) Cards84664 03:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

And you didn't read my response. Firstly, I debunked the loading gauge argument. The cars on the Chicago "L" are comparable in size to cars on major unambiguously rapid transit systems from around the world. They're wider that deep tunnel London Underground cars and NYC Subway A Division cars. They are the same length as cars on Boston's Blue Line and only 3 feet shorter than NYC A Division cars. They are most definitely not smaller than other rapid transit system cars. And calling grade crossings widespread is false, period. There are a few on the outermost portions of three branches, hardly common in the system. And international standards bodies like the UITP are more relevant the opinion of a random Wikipedia editor.

Repeating the same arguments without responding to the facts presented doesn't bolster your argument. It only makes it more dismissible. Making any changes to the article at this point is against both plain facts and consensus. WP:DROPTHESTICK. oknazevad (talk) 04:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Article issues and assessment

This article is currently assessed as B-class. It was nominated but failed the good article criteria. I have noticed there are several inline "Citation needed tags for 2010, 2013, and 2019. It also has a June 2021 "Gallery" section tag: "This section contains an unencyclopedic or excessive gallery of images" that I do not agree with. This is under a history section that I think better served as a subsection but the historical aspect is interesting and not distracting.

However, the criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The tags are evidence there have been challenges.

At this point solutions to solve career tag issues include:

Supply citations
Remove unsourced content
Reassess the article.

#4 of the criteria states: The article is reasonably well-written. On a first and fast read I only saw a few things that could be improved but aside from the tags I would think B-class appropriate therefore I would think #3 the last choice. Otr500 (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)