Two weeks ago, I visited “The Windy City,” Chicago.
As I visited the city’s cultural attractions, I used public transportation—the Chicago Transit Authority—to get around.
For $2.50, I took a 35-minute train ride and reached my destination. That helped me avoid traffic, reduce expenses and minimize my environmental footprint.
A significant number of residents of the metropolitan region utilize the CTA on a daily basis for the same reasons.
Chicago takes pride in its transit infrastructure. In 2005, the Chicago Tribune named the “L” —U.S.’s fourth-largest rapid transit system, stretching nearly across every corner of the area and its surrounding neighborhoods—one of the city’s “Seven Wonders.”
Even in suburban areas, you can find bike lane routes, rush hour buses, and train rails integrated into the landscape.
In contrast, Miami’s public transportation system is underdeveloped.
Since it began operating in 1984, the Miami Metrorail has had two tracks and 23 stations, barely covering enough ground to make it truly accessible.
If I were to rely on it to reach my house, the journey would take nearly an hour, requiring multiple transfers and a half-mile walk—an impractical option for daily commuting.
The majority of Miami-Dade County’s population depends almost entirely on automobiles, reinforcing a car-centric infrastructure that contributes to environmental problems such as air pollution and urban heat.
Residents have petitioned for service expansions to the northern and southeastern corridors. But many Miamians feel neglected because they watch proposals surface only to be rejected or delayed.
While expansion plans have been introduced by the Strategic Miami Area Rapid Transit (SMART) Program, these projects are expected to take decades to complete.
So far, the main implementation has been the expansion of the Bus Express Rapid Transit services, aiming to provide speed and accessibility. But has it truly made a significant difference in how residents move through the city?
Miami’s car-dependency is evident and elected officials are aware of the issue.
Mayor Danielle Levine Cava has publicly addressed the matter, assuring citizens that solutions are underway. Yet, instead of encouraging an improved budget for the public transportation system, the Florida Department of Transportation allocated four billion dollars to major roadways across the state during the 2023 legislative session.
On a more controversial note, the FDOT advanced a $866 million budget for the construction of the infamous six-arch Signature Bridge on Interstate 395—a centerpiece of the Connecting Miami project.
The initiative originally promised 33 acres of green space beneath the elevated highway, designed to connect the long separated neighborhoods. However, Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill—signed into law on July 4—slashed $60 million in federal funding previously designated for the project, jeopardizing the possibility of its realization.
Critics claim that while the initiative may boost Downtown Miami’s tourism appeal, it will intensify vehicle density.
When evaluating the transit efficiency of cities like Miami and Chicago, multiple factors come into play—population size, car density, weather, freight traffic, and seasonal tourism.
Although Miami’s estimated half a million residents pale in comparison to Chicago’s 2.7 million, the two cities share notable similarities: excessive commercial truck usage, similar roadwork and waste management schedules, and high car ownership rates.
The difference lies in responsiveness. Chicago listens to the concerns of its citizens. Miami delays its promises.
Chicago has invested in installing protected bike lanes, expanding public transportation routes and improving walkability. Miami, on the other hand, continues to spend resources on highway aesthetics.
Miami should take inspiration from Chicago, undertake serious reconstruction of its infrastructure, and prioritize transit equity to provide residents and visitors with affordable, sustainable options.
