With the Council for Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (<\/em>CTBUH<\/em><\/a>), now renamed the Council on Vertical Urbanism (<\/em>CVU<\/em><\/a>) in Toronto this week for their <\/em>annual international conference<\/em><\/a> \u2014 the world headquarters for this arbiter of everything tall is located in Chicago \u2014 we thought it would be fun to run a short series of articles looking at the similarities and differences of the two cities. The <\/em>first part<\/em><\/a> of our Toronto vs Chicago series examined how each city balances its mix of high-rise and low-rise growth. The <\/em>second part<\/em><\/a> explored in more detail how the two skylines have evolved and where they now stand in the race for height. This part compares the transit system that serves the two cities.<\/em><\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n As the two large Great Lakes metropolises, Chicago and Toronto have a great deal in common, but these evolving cities are on different trajectories. As Toronto’s skyline continues to rapidly transform and the roadways become ever more choked, comparing the two is natural. Today we examine the rail and bus lines that move masses through these two great cities, to try to determine how their public transport networks stack up.<\/p>\n Subways and Rapid Transit<\/strong><\/p>\n The Chicago ‘L’ and the TTC Subway system are the backbones of Chicago and Toronto’s public transport systems respectively, and in many ways they are representative of the differences between the two cities public transport systems writ large.<\/p>\n You can largely see this in the quality-versus-quantity divide. Chicago’s rapid transit system is substantially larger than Toronto’s today, with numerous lines converging on the city centre, which not only has two subway lines, but also the iconic elevated \u201cloop\u201d that defines the windy city\u2019s downtown. Meanwhile, downtown Toronto is largely served by a single subway line laid out in a \u2018U\u2019-shape across the core. Heading towards the suburbs, Toronto has just four subway corridors (and maybe a branch depending on how you look at the Sheppard Subway) while Chicago has over eight.<\/p>\n But while looking at the numbers and the maps alone doesn’t paint a pretty picture for Toronto, the reality on the ground is very different. Toronto’s much smaller subway system moves far more passengers everyday; subway service is both much more frequent in Toronto and much more reliable, stations are cleaner (many of Chicago stations still even have wooden platforms) and more accessible (every TTC subway station will be fully accessible in the next few years, while Chicagoans will need to wait at least another decade). The trains themselves are also more modern and more capacious. And as for the lines, while much of Chicago’s trackage is elevated and in some state of disrepair, Toronto’s network is largely underground and despite some works areas, in a comparatively good state of repair. Most Torontonians would be surprised going to Chicago just how infrequent, dated, and run down the rapid transit system feels, and to some extent this can be blamed on the system’s much older age, but Chicago really has not done a great job keeping its system in good condition nor modernizing it over time, with some exceptions like the Red-Purple Bypass project.<\/p>\n When it comes to expansion, Toronto completely leaves Chicago in the dust. While Chicago has a single extension project moving forward, Toronto has three major extensions and an entirely new modern subway line crossing the core of the city all at various stages of work. That’s on top of the new trains that have been ordered for Line 2, and the (hopefully) soon to open Eglinton and Finch lines, and serious talk of adding platform screen doors<\/a> on the existing network. Suburban transit-oriented development is also happening at an order of magnitude-greater intensity in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, something which is likely to reinforce the high-intensity of ridership on rapid transit.<\/p>\n So while Chicago certainly has a more iconic and famous rapid transit system, on most metrics that matter for driving public transport use and providing a high-quality service, Toronto is far ahead, and even Chicago’s lead on size will be eroded significantly as Toronto continues to expand its network.<\/p>\n Regional Rail<\/strong><\/p>\n The story of regional rail in these two cities is one of a perhaps even greater divide than with rapid transit.<\/p>\n Again, on paper Chicago’s Metra regional train network looks far superior to Toronto\u2019s GO, with eleven lines compared to Toronto\u2019s seven, and far, far more trackage. The issue is, the quality of those lines is far, far lower. While Metra does at least offer hourly service on a large portion of its network, the 15- and even 30-minutes service seen on the GO Network is essentially unheard of in Chicago.<\/p>\n The rolling stock is also very different. While some in Toronto \u2014 including me \u2014 complain about GO’s bilevel coaches and their small number of doors, they feel practically European compared to Chicago. Metra still largely uses the \u201cgallery car\u201d design, which has one single door on each side of each carriage, followed by steps up to a main level, and then a second floor which is open to the first (to allow ticket inspectors to check tickets on both levels at once) and very cramped. Chicago is meant to get some new cars for its commuter network from Alstom that will be similar to Toronto’s bi-level design, and battery multiple units for one of its lines. Still, Toronto’s completely uniform and accessible fleet is far, far superior.<\/p>\n There is a similar difference in quality in the lines and stations of both networks. Metra has far more grade crossings in core parts of Chicago than GO has in Toronto, and many stations feel like the worst in the GTHA, with little more than a curb and a bus shelter for passengers to wait for their train \u2014 sometimes even with level crossings breaking up the platform. By comparison, many modern GO stations feel like true rapid transit, with fully-covered platforms and digital displays highlighting the next trains. In the city centres, while GO trains all converge on Union Station, Chicago has four separate stations \u2014 Ogilvie, Union, LaSalle, and Millennium \u2014 which might seem cool, but in practice makes cross-regional connections frustrating, and does not easily enable the through operation of trains that already exists in Toronto, and which will be greatly expanded in the future. With all of its renovations, Toronto Union Station also probably feels like the most modern train station between the two cities.<\/p>\n Of course, Toronto also has the UP Express, an all-day every 15-minutes airport rail link with multiple units trains, level boarding, and even screen doors at the terminal stations. Chicago has nothing similar, with the ride to the airport on the ‘L’ being slow and rather infrequent. (Toronto is looking to add a further rapid transit connection to Pearson Airport, as part of another extension of the Eglinton Crosstown West extension project, which is currently being studied).<\/p>\n In the future, the gap between Metra and GO will only grow substantially larger, as the GO lines are transitioned to a level of service similar to the UP Express, closer to rapid transit than both the old \u201ccommuter rail\u201d model, and the hourly regional service of today.<\/p>\n Local Transit<\/strong><\/p>\n If you’re sensing a trend, it continues with local transit service. Toronto and Chicago both have large bus systems, but Toronto’s network moves far more people and provides substantially better service.<\/p>\n Numerous suburban corridors in the city of Toronto receive bus service, with buses coming every 10 minutes or better. In fact, even suburban street corners like Don Mills and Finch or Sheppard and Kennedy often see more buses passing by than central parts of Chicago.\u00a0<\/p>\n Of course, the bus network is highly-oriented around augmenting and connecting to the subway, and while some transfers are completed street-side, connections to the subway and between buses can be made in rather nice terminals located at most subway stations. As you might expect, night bus service in Toronto is both more intense and more extensive, though Chicago does score points for running portions of the El 24\/7.<\/p>\n Toronto has a bit of an ace up its sleeve with the streetcars though, which historically have provided an even higher level of service than the buses, and substantial comfort for routes across the core not served by the subway. While the current state of the streetcar network with slow unreliable service and numerous diversions does not paint a positive picture of what trams can offer, Chicago has absolutely nothing comparable, and should Toronto decide to reinvest and reinvent this huge transportation asset, it will pay enormous transportation and land use dividends.<\/p>\n Other<\/strong><\/p>\n It feels odd to have an \u201cother\u201d category, but even with Toronto scoring what I would say are decisive wins on the three main categories of public transport, the comparison feels incomplete.<\/p>\n For example, on the topic of buses, GO has its own entire regional bus network augmenting and complimenting the trains, with numerous terminals \u2014 including an indoor one \u2014 in the city centre connected up with Union Station. Meanwhile in the suburbs, there are numerous bus rapid transit lines from York Region to Mississauga, with further projects currently being planned, and constructed.<\/p>\n At the same time, light rail services are popping up everywhere in the GTHA, with systems in Kitchener-Waterloo now and Hamilton in coming years, and with the Hurontario LRT service running between three different GO lines in Mississauga and Brampton currently in advanced construction.<\/p>\n There are also countless proposals and under construction new rail stations along the GO network, and plans for several extension projects, not to mention serious talk of a high-speed rail link to Ottawa and Montreal.<\/p>\n The distinctions between the Presto fare card system and Chicago’s Ventra are perhaps instructive of just how much better and more integrated transit in Toronto is. Despite both cards being in theory regionally-integrated fare cards, you can’t even use Ventra on Metra. Meanwhile, Presto can even be used in Ottawa, hours east of Toronto.<\/p>\n Suffice to say, well, Chicago was long larger and richer than Toronto, but decades of smart policy particularly in the late 20th century, and numerous smart decisions both in land use and infrastructure planning have solidly cemented Toronto with a far superior public transport service, even if perhaps it is less impressive on maps for the moment.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n Reece Martin is a well-known advocate for good transit, worldwide. He is based in Toronto and blogs at nextmetro.substack<\/a>.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n UrbanToronto will continue to follow progress on this development, but in the meantime, you can learn more about it from our Database file, linked below. If you’d like, you can join in on the conversation in the associated Line 5<\/a> and Line 6<\/a> Forum threads, or leave a comment in the space provided on this page.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n UrbanToronto has a research service,\u00a0UTPro<\/a>, that provides comprehensive data on development projects in the Greater Golden Horseshoe \u2014 from proposal through to completion. We also offer\u00a0Instant Reports<\/a>, downloadable snapshots based on location, and a daily subscription newsletter,\u00a0New Development Insider<\/a>, that tracks projects from initial application.\u200b\u200b\u200b<\/p>\n <\/imgx><\/imgx><\/imgx><\/imgx><\/imgx><\/imgx><\/imgx><\/imgx><\/imgx><\/imgx><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n\n<\/div>\n
October 08, 2025 by Reece Martin<\/span><\/span>\u00a0\u00a0
![\"-\"](\"https:\/\/cdn.skyrisecities.com\/release\/img\/views.png?14728329483\")
\u00a029\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\nToronto vs Chicago: Transit Moving Masses Through The Metropolises<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n