Talk:Chicago "L"

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)

"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.

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 October 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)

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

Version 1.0

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)

Fares

A section on how much fare is charged, how fares are paid, and the fare structure in general needs to be added.

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chicago 'L'/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am failing the article because it fails the good article criteria. In particular, criterion 2 (references) is not followed; large portions of the article lack references and there are {{fact}} tags. Several of the references are formatted incorrectly and some are just bare links. The article also seems to have a non-optimal structure. In particular, there should not he an "overview" and "getting around the 'L'" and "'L' or El" section; this information should be incorporated into other sections. Looking at what is common among GA and FA rapid transit articles, I would recommend a section of "route" (including lines and stations, or similar) and "service" (including parts of "getting around the 'L'"). Particularly in the last section, I am concerned about the unencyclopedic style, which should describe the system and operations, rather than "presume" that the reader is a rider. The bulleting of that section should also be removed. The article also has a lot of undue weight: despite the 'L' being one of the world's oldest rapid transits, there is a very short history section (for instance much shorter than the yet-to-commence Bergen Light Rail) and a huge section on the future. There is also too little information on the rolling stock; just because there is a subarticle, there should still be much more about the trains. Also the lead needs to be a lot longer, somewhere between two and three times the current length. Once the article has been improved, feel free to renominate the article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

New Chicago 'L' navigation box?

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)