Why Won't the CTA Brand the Chicago 'L'?

It's a fair question. New York City has its subway. Boston has its T. Washington D.C. has its Metrorail. London has its Underground. Paris has its metro. In all of those cities, the colloquial name for the rapid-transit system is emblazoned on maps and signs, used in official documents, and pushed forward in press releases as a way to help riders-existing and potential-easily conceive of the rail network.

So why aren't the most famous elevated trains on the planet--ours here in Chicago--similarly branded?

On the 1892 opening day of Chicago's original South Side Rapid Transit Railroad, real estate speculators had already named the network: the 'L'. Not the less parsimonious east coast moniker "El", thank you. But a lone capital L, set off in apostrophes.

For the next 116 years, we Chicagoans have been calling our beloved elevated-train system just that, the 'L'. So why doesn't the CTA? Sure, they've got the term trademarked. I know that because the few times I've actually seen them use it--usually in one-off documents or on long-defunct station maps--it's got that nifty little trademark bug following it. But why doesn't the CTA use the term now?

Go ahead and ask around. Turn to your workmate in the next cubicle, ask your friends and family, query the very next person you meet after reading this post. Ask them, "What's the name of Chicago's rail system?"

If they don't immediately say the 'L', lifelong non-driver that I am, I'll go out and get a learner's permit.

Any for-profit company would be foolish not to leverage a brand so deeply entrenched in popular parlance. (I lied at the beginning of this post. Transport for London usually officially calls the Underground the "Tube". This abiding popular brand recognition is exactly why.)

How does the CTA refer to its most obvious and enduring brand symbol? On its website: CTA rapid transit trains--industry jargon. On its maps and brochures: CTA elevated/subway trains--a dry description.

Most oddly, even though the CTA has made a much-appreciated and long-overdue effort to replace aging and defunct station signage with far more attractive and informative versions, still the 'L' is neither named nor referred to as the comprehensive network that it is almost anywhere in the actual 'L' system, itself.

Am I the only one scratching my head here? What is the CTA waiting for? Can the agency not recognize the power of 116 years of brand recognition?

Does agency management think Chicagoans wouldn't be able to find our downtown subway stations anymore if they call the whole system the 'L'? (It isn't as if millions of international urbanites have any trouble finding the above-ground stations of the New York subway or the London Underground).

Or is it just a case of inertia? After years of (hopefully now ended) mismanagement and turning a blind eye to customer opinion, has everyone at Ron Huberman's newly revitalized CTA simply not noticed that the CTA 'L' system has no name?

Whatever the reason, it's a shame. It seems to me that "CTA 'L'" would look a whole lot better at the top of a CTA station map than "CTA rapid-transit subway/elevated system". Or, for that matter, than the current name that sits atop the new maps that the CTA has recently installed at 'L' stations and inside 'L' cars.

Which, in case you haven't noticed, is no name at all.

Comments

[ChicagoD]

Oh, where to start. First, in the WHOLE FIVE YEARS(!) you've lived in Chicago you don't recall those signs? Golly. It's like it never happened! Sheesh. The 'L' is different from the subway. The entire system is not the 'L'. Whether you have heard "over the top" or not does not make the subway the 'L'.

Tourists know what the U-Bahn in Berlin is? Is that because it is the same U-Bahn as in every other German-speaking city in the world? Do tourists know what the U.Bahn in Vienna is? Is it because U-Bahn is simply a shortened version of subway? What about the S-Bahn? Do tourists know what the S-Bahn is? Because they have those in every German city with more than about 200,000 people. Again, sheesh.

Nobody knows what the TTC is. Go ask 100 people on the street. The T in Boston is the only example you gave that may have currency.

Finally, repairing the tracks out to O'Hare as a basis of criticism? Perfect. That's very insightful.

I keep hoping this Huffington Post thing for Chicago will work out, but ill-informed snark for its own sake is going to get old.

[MrDowntown]

A couple of reasons, some of them reasonable.

First, "L" historically indicated something specific when navigating the system. Until fairly recently, signs at Fullerton pointed to "downtown via subway" or "Loop via 'L'."

Second, it's a tricky term to explain to non-English speakers. It's not just German tourists who may well have read about the city's peculiar idioms in a guidebook, it's recently arrived Mexicans and Syrians and Croats who may be completely unfamiliar with public transport concepts. Think about the CTA's Spanish-edition map suggesting that a user "Tome el L." It doesn't help that the city's daily newspapers spell it "L" while the weekly newspapers spell it "el."

Third, there's a bit of literalness among the folks who make a lot of the CTA marketing decisions. A few years ago they insisted that all references to "rush hours" be changed to "rush periods" because they might last longer than an hour. (Let's just say I speak as a bit of an insider on these issues.)

However, history buffs who are, thankfully, in charge of parts of the CTA signage have resurrected the italic "L" and it now appears on the system maps you find on trains and platforms. Those, however, are done by completely different departments than the folks who do the printed paper and web maps.

[Mike Doyle - Huffpost Blogger]

MrDowntown, those signs at Fullerton have been gone for quote some time now (I don't recall them in the five years I've lived in Chicago). And while it's true that since the mid-1900s a distintction has been made between "via subway" and via "Loop 'L'" in some instances, usually trains are denoted as going "over the top" when diverted from subway service.

The idiom argument doesn't wash. Tourists know what the T means in Boston and the TTC in Toronto and the U-Bahn in Berlin. It says so in their guidebooks. And newspapers of whatever daily and weekly stripe would call the system by its official name if indeed it had one. We get variations on a theme now because there is no standard term promulgated by the CTA.

You're right about that literal "rush period" vs. "rush hour" terminology. That's an industry lteralness and it's stupid. It derives from the same ignorance as the refusal to address the branding issue: no one says "rush period". So why does the CTA feel the need to use an alternate term to the one its cutomers actually say?

Finally, the new 'L' system maps in installed in stations do not contain an italic "'L'" symbol. Those were older maps installed during the early 2000s. The new maps (sporting the pink line) installed under the Huberman administration have all seen that symbol removed. As I said in the post, these maps are completely nameless.

That's entirely the point.

[za2008]

Within the last year, I still remember seeing older green and white station maps with

The 'L'

in the lower left hand corner. The 'L' was a 2 1/2 inch high cartoonish red letter. These were usually painted on a metal backing and attached to a pole on the platform in one of those Red Line/North Side stations where maintenance at night could be challenging.

[hardenjb]

Do people still pay by the letter? Think how much money the CTA could save by calling it the L

[larry278]

Both the CTA & the L are beyond branding. Both of them are national institutions & are the epitome of Chicago to the nation. The L is big, brawny & in your face; so is Chicago. SF has cable cars but Chicago is the L. Yes, there is O'Haire. That's big & brawny too. If you think of Chicago, you think of big & efficient as in the L & O'Haire.

[Mike Doyle - Huffpost Blogger]

I don't know the last time you were in Chicago, larry278, but the last thing that comes to my mind about the CTA is the word "efficient". If the 'L' truly were a national institution, it would probably be in better shape by now. Then again, the Cubs are a national institution, too, and look at the shape they always end up in.

I've heard tell of this O'Hare of which you speak. You used to be able get there on the 'L' before CTA President Ron Huberman ordered the Blue Line's tracks taken home every weekend to be polished. I'm not sure how many German tourists have missed their flights back to Stuttgart, but the rails sure are shiny come Monday morning.

If these are Chicago's epitomes in the eyes of America, we need to find some new epitomes.

[Myshkin57]

The 'L' is indeed far from efficient. Try taking the red line north to Edgewater from downtown. But, make sure you don't have to be anywhere. The whole track is a slow zone. And, if you really want a treat, transfer to a brown line train. You can get a lot of reading done during your wait!