Chicago VS New York City

[hawkpride147 1]

Originally posted by: LegoMyDego28 however, Chicago is where the first skyscraper was bornquote>

not quite...according to the AIA and ESC, NYC was the first...

[HuskerDude 12]

It's funny that with all the skyscraper talk here, the part of Manhattan that most people prefer is the bit in between the Financial and Midtown. The Villages, Chelsea, LES, SoHo, these are the coolest parts of NY. The skyscrapers look neat from far away, but once you're in the city, they become pretty irrelevant. It's the neighborhoods that make a city, not the tall buildings.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: HuskerDude It's funny that with all the skyscraper talk here, the part of Manhattan that most people prefer is the bit in between the Financial and Midtown. The Villages, Chelsea, LES, SoHo, these are the coolest parts of NY. The skyscrapers look neat from far away, but once you're in the city, they become pretty irrelevant. It's the neighborhoods that make a city, not the tall buildings.quote>

Point. Midtown and downtown aren't really "neighboorhoods" in the truest sense of the word. The reason for that is that at any given time the vast majority of the people there do not live there, most don't live in New York City at all, and a significant number don't even live in this country. Walking around such places and keeping your ears open to what the people you're passing are saying you'd think the tower of babel just fell at times.

...then again you see that elsewhere too. A couple weeks a go I was in a Wendy's on Broadway just north of Bleecker Street and the guy in line behind me was talking to someone on his cellphone in French. That kind of thing is pretty much par for the course anywhere in the main part of Manhattan.

[Federal111 0]

Undoubtedly New York has my vote.

I have been to many other cities, Redmond, Atlanta, San Francisco etc. but none amaze me as much as New York does. The others fail to amaze. The mix of modern, postmodern and art deco architecture forms a collage of different styles making New York the most diverse in my opinion. The supertalls mean almost nothing to me, only skyscrapers themselves matter. At average heights is what amazes me. If you have 15 skyscrapers and 3 supertalls, then I consider that barely a large important city (Dubai *cough* cough*). I do believe Chicago does have a nice skyline though and has its place in my heart as 2nd best in the world though. Even so, its 4 or more supertalls do not impress me as much as New York's 4 or so supertalls in addition to its 200+ regular skyscrapers.

Also transportation mentioned, the subways are a minus too but made up for the tremendous amount of diversity and numbers of bridges. There are LOTS of large bridges in NYC regardless if they are famous or not.

Nice Bridges-

-Brooklyn Bridge: Pre-artdecco era, use of metal and stone -

-Manhattan Bridge: Introduction of steel bridges

-Verrazano Bridge- Largest suspension bridge in the United States, 8th largest in the world

In all, there are 33 large bridges that are connected to Manhattan along with 58 Bridges throughout the rest of the city. Although some people may not like the idea of underground transport, it sure is effective in getting people into the city other than by bridge:

There are 26 Tunnels into the city that cars use to drive under the rivers.

The city itself has a diverse community along with lots o restaurants to choose from. From the hot dog stands to the wealthy Italian cuisine restaurant on the corner of Time Square

The array of large museums also amazes me. Even Simcity 4 creators recognize the significance of the American Museum of Natural History as it's one of the landmarks. Don't forget the Metropolitan museum of art which is one of the largest in the world.

To me NYC has most of it, museums, bridges, avenues, churches, skyscrapers, parks (Simcity sound familiar?), While Chicago has 3 or 4 supertalls, minor museums, above ground rail and some snazzy architecture here and there.

Now don't get me wrong, I love Chicago too, it's #2 over Tokyo or London. I just prefer New York

Federal Votes NYC

[Duke87 1,070]

33 bridges and 26 tunnels? Your counting needs work. Just so happens I have a list.

Starting at Battery park, going counterclockwise:

Connecting Manhattan to Brooklyn:

1) Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (four lanes of traffic) [i-478]

2) Joralemon Street Tunnel (two subway tracks) [4 and 5 trains]

3) Montague Street Tunnel (two subway tracks) [M and R trains]

4) Clark Street Tunnel (two subway tracks) [2 and 3 trains]

5) Fulton Street Tunnel (two subway tracks) [A and C trains]

6) Brooklyn Bridge (six lanes of traffic and pedestrian walkway)

7) Manhattan Bridge (nine lanes of traffic, four subway tracks, and pedestrian walkway) [b, D, N, and Q trains]

Rutgers Street Tunnel (two subway tracks) [F train]

9) Williamsburgh Bridge (eight lanes of traffic, two subway tracks, and pedestrian walkway) [J, M, and Z trains]

10) 14th Street Tunnel (two subway tracks) [L train]

Connecting Manhattan to Queens:

1) East River Tunnel (four? train tracks) [Amtrak and LIRR]

2) Queens-Midtwon Tunnel (four lanes of traffic) [i-495]

3) Steinway Tunnel (two subway tracks) [7 train]

4) 53rd Street Tunnel (two subway tracks) [E and V trains]

5) 59th Street Bridge (eight lanes of traffic)

6) 60th Street Tunnel (two subway tracks) [N, R, and W trains]

7) 63rd Street Tunnel (two subway tracks, provision for two train tracks) [F train, planned LIRR]

Roosevelt Island Bridge (two lanes of traffic) {access only to Roosevelt Island, not Manhattan proper}

9) Triborough Bridge Hell Gate Span (eight lanes of traffic and pedestrian walkway) [i-278]

10) Hell Gate Bridge (three active train tracks, one disused train track) [Amtrak]

Connecting Manhattan to The Bronx:

1) Bronx Kill Rail Bridge (three active train tracks, one disused train track) [Amtrak]

2) Triborough Bridge Bronx Kill Span (eight lanes of traffic and pedestrian walkway) [i-278]

3) Willis Avenue Bridge (four lanes of traffic and pedestrian walkway) {outbound only}

4) Third Avenue Bridge (four lanes of traffic and pedestrian walkway) {inbound only}

5) Lexington Avenue Tunnel (four subway tracks) [4, 5, and 6 trains]

6) Park Avenue Bridge (four train tracks) [Metro-North]

7) Madison Avenue Bridge (four lanes of traffic and pedestrian walkway)

145th Street Bridge (four lanes of traffic and pedestrian walkway)

9) 149th Street Tunnel (two subway tracks) [2 train]

10) Macombs Dam Bridge (four lanes of traffic and pedestrian walkway)

11) 161st Street Tunnel (three subway tracks) [b and D trains]

12) High Bridge (abandoned water supply pipe and closed pedestrian walkway)

13) Alexander Hamilton Bridge (eight lanes of traffic) [i-95, US 1]

14) Washington Bridge (six lanes of traffic)

15) University Heights Bridge (four lanes of traffic and pedestrian walkway)

Connecting Manhattan to Manhattan:  What?

1) Broadway Bridge (four lanes of traffic, three subway tracks, and two pedestrian walkways) [uS 9, 1 train]

Connecting Manhattan to The Bronx:

16) Henry Hudson Bridge (eight lanes of traffic and pedestrian walkway) [NY 9A]

17) Empire Connection Rail Bridge (one train track, with room for a second that's never been added) [Amtrak]

Connecting Manhattan to New Jersey:

1) George Washington Bridge (fourteen lanes of traffic and pedestrian walkway) [i-95, US 1, US 9]

2) Lincoln Tunnel (six lanes of traffic) [NJ 495]

3) Penn Central Tunnel (two train tracks) [Amtrak and NJ transit]

4) Christopher Street Tunnel (two train tracks) [PATH]

5) Holland Tunnel (four lanes of traffic) [i-78]

6) Hudson and Manhattan Tunnel<

[Federal111 0]

Well the general number still stands that there are around 30 bridges and 20 tunnels but that's beside the point. My point about transportation is that even though NYC has the con of subways, it has the great benefit of its numerous bridges and tunnels.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Those use the good old pantograph technology etc. and aren't too much of an eyesore. quote>

The phrase "good old pantograph technology" cracks me up. It sounds like saying "good old black and white TV technology" or "good old dialup modem technology". Seriously, third rails are generally superior in terms of practicality and functionality, trouble is you can't use them on lines that have grade crossings.quote>

Wait...what?  Okay, I can understand that a third rail might be more practical...but you can't exactly scoff at pantograph trains either.  Bear in mind, trains like the ICE, TGV, Bullet Train etc. aren't exactly "obsolete" like you seem to make them out to be when comparing them to very old, dis-functional technology.  Unless, trains carrying passengers from the suburbs to the city core at up to 200+ MPH is like "good old dial-up technology"?

Now I know, for inner city travel they're not so good, but I still back my statement when comparing the people of Europe/Asia and their complex pantograph rail lines.

[Mebert 5]

The MTA is without a doubt the most effective transportation network in America. You can get anywhere on a variety of modes of travel, and for the most part, incredibly inexpensively. The subway fare is a flat $2, which you can take from Rockaway to the Bronx. Then you got your commuter rail, your Metro North, or LIR. Granted, the busses are pretty unnecessary - I haven't used a bus in years - but everything else is effective, efficient, and well-coordinated. This, combined with the sheer volume of track (largest in the world) gives New York the best mass transit system, hands down. In fact, they won Popular Science's eco-city award for Mass Transit this past year. I have owned a car once in my life, and that was when I lived in Philadelphia. Everything else I can do on the subway. I mean, the Grand Street station is only a block or two from my apartment, and from there I can hit the B or D. In addition, the fact that New York is the only subway system in the top 10 that runs every hour of every day of every year is another great help. And it's not much worse in the outer boroughs. I practically lived under the New Utrecht El for the first eighteen years of my life. You have no idea what a convenience that was.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Well I have visited both NY and Chicago and while both have their advantages and problems the clear leader is NY.

I always look forward to visiting NY even if for a couple of days, always gets me excited. The city is so alive and so much happening. Fantastic place to visit and live.

[IDS2 3,396]

This isn't really a fair comparison-New York is nearly 4 times larger than Chicago, and they exist for different reasons. Chicago started mainly as a midwestern trading center, such as livestock and other crops, while New York is a worldwide port and was the immigration center. It still is, in a way.

Oh, and Federal111, how are the subways a con? They're the city's main form of transportation-correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the MTA is the world's most used subway.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Oh, and Federal111, how are the subways a con? They're the city's main form of transportation-correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the MTA is the world's most used subway.quote>

Actually that's Moscow's metro system, followed by Tokyo with NY third

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Mebert The subway fare is a flat $2, which you can take from Rockaway to the Bronx.quote>

You're without a doubt already aware of this, but for those who are not: The fare is listed as $2.00, and while it is never any more, it can easily be less. If you buy a Metrocard and put more than $7.00 on it, you automatically get a 15% bonus. In other words, for paying $7.00 you get a card with $8.05 on it. This works out to just under $1.74 per ride, assuming there's no loose change left over on the card by the time you're done using it. And, well, you can keep using the same card for over a year, and you can put more money on it at any time- so in the end you'll likely pull out ahead even if you end up with $1.95 on it when it expires, which is 13 months from the date of first purchase plus however many days it takes to get to the end of the month. My current card was bought back in January and it expires February 28, 2009. And the expiration date is printed on the back of the card, lest you forget what it is. 

Then you got your commuter rail, your Metro North, or LIR. Granted, the busses are pretty unnecessary - I haven't used a bus in years - but everything else is effective, efficient, and well-coordinated.quote>

Well, some parts of the city are better served by buses than by the subway. And people most certainly do use them. Now, granted, the number of bus riders in a year is in general about a third to a half of the number of subway riders... but that's still several hundred million trips annually, which ain't too shabby.

[Mebert 5]

Well, you have a point. I guess if you live in Throgs Neck, or something, you might want to take a bus. That was a bit asinine to say that they are unnecessary. I do think, however, that in some places, the busses should be replaced with light rail. And the MTA is the world's third-busiest subway, though it is the largest in terms of track volume and daily trips, I believe. The price can't be beat, though. My wife's family lives around DC, and so I went down there for a week. The DC metro, pure and simple, sucks. There are only a couple lines, and only one train per line (i.e., all Red Line trains are the same - you don't have the 1 or 2 or 3 trains on the Red Line). That means no express trains. Also, the distance between stations is practically all the way across the city, as opposed to New York, where, especially in Manhattan, the distance between the stations can be as small as the length of the station itself. And the cost for this pile of garbage? During rush hour, in excess of $4.00, minimum. And it's not a flat fee; the farther you go, the more you pay. That means that you have to pay on your way out, as well as in, and it is possible to be trapped inside the station because you don't have enough money to leave. The only good thing was that the turnstiles were easy as hell to jump. I think the next major issue of the MTA is to link the SIR with the subway. They already use the same gauge and cars, and both are run by the MTA. It wouldn't be a structural impossibility to run cars under the VN.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Mebert Well, you have a point. I guess if you live in Throgs Neck, or something, you might want to take a bus. That was a bit asinine to say that they are unnecessary. I do think, however, that in some places, the busses should be replaced with light rail.quote>

Or Bus Rapid Transit. That's going to happen on 34th Street, you know. Link

And the MTA is the world's third-busiest subway, though it is the largest in terms of track volume and daily trips, I believe.  quote>

Track volume, yes. 656 miles of it in active service, plus 186 miles in yards, storage, and unused connections. That's 842 miles, enough to reach Chicago if you laid all that track end to end. Third busiest, also yes. Number 1 is Tokyo (if you include both subways, there are two competing systems there), number 2 is Moscow. As for most daily trips, how can it have the most daily trips and not be the world's busiest? So no on that one.

The DC metro, pure and simple, sucks. There are only a couple lines, and only one train per line (i.e., all Red Line trains are the same - you don't have the 1 or 2 or 3 trains on the Red Line). That means no express trains. quote>

They can't very well have express service with only two tracks, which is what the entire system is everywhere. Why? Cheaper to built two tracks than to build three or four. The system can function without express service, and since it's your tax dollars paying for its construction, nobody wanted to spend the extra money necessary to do that.

Also, the distance between stations is practically all the way across the city, as opposed to New York, where, especially in Manhattan, the distance between the stations can be as small as the length of the station itself. quote>

Just to point something out, many of the station platforms in New York were built to handle five car trains and later expanded to handle ten car trains- making the stations closer together than they originally were, and in some cases bringing them so close together that one of the stations was simply abandoned out of sheer redundancy. Key casualties of this were Worth Street and 18th Street on the Lexington Avenue line (would be served by the 6 train if they were still open) and 91st Street on the West Side IRT (would be served by the 1 train if it was still open). That's also, for instance, why at 168th Street on the 1, half of the length of the station is wide open with a high arched ceiling but a little bit at the north end and quite a lot at the south end is a low ceiling with steel columns between the tracks. Those are the parts that were added on later.

As for the DC Metro, within the center city the stations are fairly close together, it's just that out toward the ends of the lines they really spread out. So it actually has more route miles (106.3) than stations (86). Seeing the system map drawn geographically accurate and to scale effectively demonstrates this. And, well, it's not all that unusual considering that the system runs way out into the suburbs, not just in the city itself like New York's does. That thing goes all the way to Shady Grove (among other such outlying places). That'd be like having the New York subway run to someplace like Morristown or Ossining in terms of the type of area being served. Does having a few miles between stations really sound unreasonable there?

And the cost for this pile of garbage? During rush hour, in excess of $4.00, minimum. And it's not

[Mebert 5]

Or Bus Rapid Transit. That's going to happen on 34th Street, you know.quote>

I don't like that idea at all. It's going to be way more inefficient. If you're going to make the lanes bus only, you might as well put track down. Granted, that would be more expensive, and it is the Bronx, but hey. We can probably get a grant from some ecologists or something.

As for most daily trips, how can it have the most daily trips and not be the world's busiest?quote>

I'm talking train trips, not personal trips. NYC has longer hours, shorter trains, and more stations. Thus, I think it has more trips between stations.

The system can function without express service, and since it's your tax dollars paying for its construction, nobody wanted to spend the extra money necessary to do that.quote>

Their loss. Without the extra tracks, the MTA would be god-awful. Just imagine going from Rector to, like, Columbia, with just the 1 ... eech.

Does having a few miles between stations really sound unreasonable there?quote>

No, not out there, but even in the city they are not very close together. Metro Center and Gallery Place/Chinatown are pretty damn far away, I discovered.

Does having a few miles between stations really sound unreasonable there?quote>

I didn't mean literally, but something akin to what you just described happened to me. I ended up jumping the turnstile.

I wonder what the fine is for jumping one and how well it's enforced.quote>

It's not the same kind of turnstile; it's those little door things. And so I got up right behind somebody, and when they went through the doors, I followed them through. Security guards watched me do it, they seemed a bit more pre-occupied with lunch than me.

Taught me to give my wallet to my wife, though ... In DC, and many other cities, the subway is more an extension of a commuter rail network. Getting to the city center is fine, but it's harder to go from place to place via the subway.

[Xiahou Dun 4]

Having been to both several times, I can easily say Chicago wins this one. Both have their beauty, but there is a certain atmosphere in Chicago that I just love. Sitting down in the evening in Grant Park watching Buckingham Fountain with the lake right behind it. Then face west and watch the sunset in the background as the lights start coming on and seeing sights like this

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/IMG_1853-vi.jpg

Its a great city to watch a ball game in. Wrigley Field and US Cellular field are amazing ballparks and aren't insanely priced. If you are a baseball fan, Wrigley has to be the destination to see a game at, its the best park in baseball.

And of course, the food, namely the pizza. Chicago deep dish style pizzas are great. You can have a slice and enjoy all the toppings, whereas a New York pizza you just taste grease. I can see the appeal of a New York pizza, and definately enjoyed then when I was a high schooler. Now that I have adult tastes though, I can see (or rather, taste) that Chicago deep dish style pizzas are far superior. Same goes for the Chicago thin crust, its just a better pizza hands down.

*waits for someone to come and tell me I'm wrong*

[hailman 1]

You're Wro--... Ahem, I said you're Wron--... I can't do it.

(hey, when you're right, you're right...right?)

[Mebert 5]

True.

Now is not such a time.

New York clearly destroys Chicago. Chicago's population -

[un1 41]

I still like Chicago more...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: MebertI don't like that idea at all. It's going to be way more inefficient. If you're going to make the lanes bus only, you might as well put track down. Granted, that would be more expensive, and it is the Bronx, but hey. We can probably get a grant from some ecologists or something.quote>

You just explained yourself why it'll never happen. Besides, you can run buses in bus lanes where they exist and in normal traffic where they don't. With light rail, it can only ever run on tracks. So it's less useful, anyway.

I'm talking train trips, not personal trips. NYC has longer hours, shorter trains, and more stations. Thus, I think it has more trips between stations. quote>

Well, shorter trains, definitely not. Most lines run 10 car trains, though a few (like the M) sometimes run 8 car trains. And then you have the dreaded G which runs 4 car trains and the Franklin Avenue shuttle which is just two 2 car pairs, but for the most part, everything is 10 cars. I don't think too many places run trains longer than that. I daresay most run trains shorter than that. 10 cars adds up to (depending on which cars the line is running) anywhere from about 520 to 750 feet long.

Their loss. Without the extra tracks, the MTA would be god-awful. Just imagine going from Rector to, like, Columbia, with just the 1 ... eech.quote>

Well, there was one Saturday where the west side line was doing that thing with the 1 terminating at 14th Street and skipping 18th, 23rd, and 28th, but then no express service north of there that I ended up taking it all the way from 14th to the north end 242nd. Took about an hour and a half. For those of you who know your New York geography and are good with math, that works out to an average speed of about 8 miles an hour. Yeowch.

Although, to be fair, the 1 is considerably faster during the week. Weekend construction contributes to it crawling quite a lot. Times Square to 242nd on a Saturday (without switching to the express) is about an hour and 10 minutes. During the week, it's more like 40 minutes. Of course, if you ditch the 1 for the A at 168th street, you can easily shave another 10 minutes off of that. Well, assuming the A isn't running local for some reason, anyway.

No, not out there, but even in the city they are not very close together. Metro Center and Gallery Place/Chinatown are pretty damn far away, I discovered. quote>

Um... those two stations are maybe about 1800 feet apart. Similar to the distance between... say, Christopher St and Houston St on the 1. It's all in your head. (Well, unless those weren't the stations you were thinking of)

Originally posted by: Xiahou Dun Its a great city to watch a ball game in. Wrigley Field and US Cellular field are amazing ballparks and aren't insanely priced. If you are a baseball fan, Wrigley has to be the destination to see a game at, its the best park in baseball.

And of course, the food, namely the pizza. Chicago deep dish style pizzas are great. You can have a slice and enjoy all the toppings, whereas a New York pizza you just taste grease. I can see the appeal of a New York pizza, and definately enjoyed then when I was a high schooler. Now that I have adult tastes though, I can see (or rather, taste) that Chicago deep dish style pizzas are far superior. Same goes for the Chicago thin crust, its just a better pizza hands down.

*waits for someone to come and tell me I'm wrong*quote>

Well, I can't really comment on the ballparks as I haven't been there... although I can say that hearing "US Cellular Field" makes me cringe. I

[Mebert 5]

You just explained yourself why it'll never happen.quote>

Oh well. It was a nice thought, though. Light rail can more more people more efficiently, and I don't think it would be an impossibility. But again, yes, expense.

That's the major issue. I mean, New York has an icredible tax discrepency, even when you factor in things like the millitary; we pay in a lot more than we get out.

I don't think too many places run trains longer than that.quote>

I was talking about the shuttles and such. Those things really rack up trips. And I don't know of any other cities that run shuttles.

Yeowch.quote>

I'll say. That sounded like it bit.

(Well, unless those weren't the stations you were thinking of)quote>

Entirely possible. Just speaking from my experience, which can be tarnished by innacuracy. I don't have the best sense of direction in the world.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Mebert I was talking about the shuttles and such. Those things really rack up trips. And I don't know of any other cities that run shuttles.quote>

Well, that's because from a planning standpoint you're not going to design a system to have shuttles since they're less efficient timewise since nobody is going to get a one seat ride with one. I mean, if all I was looking to do is get from Grand Central to Times square, I'd just walk. No, people use that shuttle as one little leg of their journey, it isn't going to make your entire trip.

But see, of the three shuttles in New York at the moment, none of them are using track actually designed to run a shuttle.

The 42nd street shuttle is a vestige of the fact that the original IRT, for whatever reason, ran up Park Avenue South, made a left turn onto 42nd street, and then made a right up Broadway rather than taking a direct route. But before long it became apparent that there was demand for lines to go all the way up and down the east and west side, and so on the west side it was extended down 7th Avenue and on the east side it was extended up Lexington... with the leftover connection, now no longer usable for through service,  reduced to a shuttle.

The Franklin Avenue shuttle formerly connected to the Fulton Street El at its north end, and it allowed trains from Coney Island to run over the Brooklyn Bridge and terminate at Park Row rather than going over the Manhattan Bridge or through the Montague Street Tunnel into the Nassau Loop or up Broadway. But then the IND built its subway line along Fulton Street (now the A/C), and the fulton Street El was subsequently torn down, and the subway tracks removed from the Brooklyn Bridge to allow two extra lanes of traffic. This left the Franklin Avenue branch off the Brighton Line dead ending at Fulton Street with nowhere further to go... and while it is still possible to run trains from there directly through all the way to Coney island, and even through Coney island and back up the Sea Beach Line (N train), that isn't done and it's just used as a shuttle instead.

The Rockaway shuttle is a different animal in that, during rush hours, some A trains do actually run to Rockaway Park instead of Far Rockaway or Ozone Park, giving the line some occasional through service....and, in fact, there really isn't a practical reason why it should be just a shuttle to Broad Channel rather than a through line other than lack of usage. The current daytime service pattern has the C terminate at Euclid Avenue while the A goes to Ozone Park or Far Rockaway and the Rockaway Park branch of that line is thrown on the short bus and only gets a shuttle. I'd think it would be better to run the C out to Ozone Park, and have the A go to Rockaway Park or Far Rockaway (and not to Ozone Park), since this removes the need for a shuttle and effectively doubles the service between Euclid Avenue and Broad Channel or Ozone Park... and that includes the Howard Beach-JFK stop.

But no, that would make far too much sense.

I also suppose it would be too much to ask to pull out a couple of those unused letters so that there aren't three S trains with no relation to each other whatsoever. Like, make the Franklin Avenue Shuttle the Y train or something, and if it has to stay, make the Rockaway shuttle an H train... which, by the way, is exactly what is was prior to 1990 or so. But no, that was too un-confusing. It had to be S too.

[Mebert 5]

I think my biggest problem with the naming convention is that the L runs underground a lot of the way.

Anyway, by "Trips," I'm talking about the trains themselves, not people in the trains. A trip from one station to another would be counted as a trip, so a train may have more than a dozen trips on a single leg. Given the volume of stations in New York City, as well as the operating hours, I don't think that's a bad estimate to make, that the MTA has more trips than any other system in the world, at least according to my definition.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Mebert I think my biggest problem with the naming convention is that the L runs underground a lot of the way.quote>

Well, there is no line that runs above ground for its entire length, unless you count the Rockaway Park shuttle... though that's not all el, either, some of it is at-grade.

Trivia: there are four lines (excluding shuttles) which run underground for their entire length- the C, E, R, and V.

The last time there was a full length above ground line was in 1973- that's the year the final portion of the Third Avenue el (from 149th Street to Gun Hill Road) was torn down. It was the 8 train.

And in any case, the L has been called that since 1985. And from 1967-1985, since it was local, it was the LL (as per the old double letter local/single letter express scheme). As for why L and not another letter... well, the original IND scheme went from A through H. In 1967, with the opening of the Chystie Street connection to the Manhattan Bridge (now used by the B and D), BMT lines were incorporated into an extension of this, although what line got what letter is apparently random.

More trivia: there are nine letters which are not currently used (H, I, K, O, P, T, U, X, Y). Of those, six (I, O, P, U, X, Y) have never been used. Rollsigns on IND/BMT division trains do, however have the letters P, T, U, X, and Y on them as blank (white circle, black letter), in case of potential future use. The also have H and K as 8th Avenue blue, since that's the line those letters ran when they were last used.

Similarly, the IRT trains' rollsigns go all the way up to 14: 9, 12, and 13 are in 7th Avenue red (9 was used from 1989-2005); 8, 10, and 14 are in Lexington Avenue green, and 11 is in 42nd Street-Flushing purple.

Anyway, by "Trips," I'm talking about the trains themselves, not people in the trains. A trip from one station to another would be counted as a trip, so a train may have more than a dozen trips on a single leg. Given the volume of stations in New York City, as well as the operating hours, I don't think that's a bad estimate to make, that the MTA has more trips than any other system in the world, at least according to my definition.quote>

Well, you already stated you meant trains not people, and you were talking about shuttles racking up trips, so I was working under "trip" defined as a single train going from one end of the line to the other- which, for a shuttle, is a short distance and thus is done quite rapidly. If you're talking about just going from one station to the next, terminus or not.... well, then the shuttles don't inflate the number. Although, would you count stations which express trains skip in there?  Because that makes a big difference.  During the day when it runs express, an A train will make a total of either 30 (Ozone Park) or 36 (Far Rockaway) stops. But along the way it also skips 22 stops, making a total of 42 (Ozone Park) or 48 (Far Rockaway) stations that it passes through (and stops at at night, when there is no express service.

Okay, I'm in a listy mood again.

Route: number of total stations/number of stops an express makes (number of stops an alternate route makes) {number of stops a part-time one-way express makes}

1: 37/x *

2: 60/48

3: 46/34

4: 48/28 (55) {27}

5: 39/25 (40) {33}

6: 38/x (32) {29}

7: 21/x {11} **

A: 48/36 (30, 34)

B: 36/26 (28)

C: 30/x

D: 47/32 {26}

E: 32/19

F: 53/43

G: 16/x (29)

J: 30/x (23) {20}

L: 24/x

M: 16/x (37)

N: 39/28 ^

Q: 29/24 ^^

R: 45/x

S (42 St): 2/x

S (Franklin Av): 4/x

S (Rockaway): 5/x

V: 24/x

W: 23/x

Z: 30/x (23) {20}

Note- An x after the slash indicates there is no two-way exp

[Mebert 5]

When I was talking about the shuttles, I was talking about something else. I don't think I made my transition in conversation clear (my fault), and that probably led to the discrepancy in understanding.

Even so, either way, I can't see any other system in the world coming close. Perhaps there is, I don't know, but I doubt it.

And while the L has been called the L for god knows how long, it still is very confusing when you talk to somebody from, say, Chicago.

One final question: is there some sort of class you take to learn about the subway? All this information is fascinating me; I've taken the subway almost every day of my adult life, and I've never really comprehended this much going into it. Kind of staggers you.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Mebert

And while the L has been called the L for god knows how long, it still is very confusing when you talk to somebody from, say, Chicago. quote>

More confusing than having three separate S trains? Or having two stations which you need to be in one of the first five cars to get off at (actually, South Ferry is being replaced, but that still leaves 145th Street on the 3)? Or how about those automatic signs on the L that supposedly tell you how long it is until the next train is coming but half the time are inaccurate, sometimes grossly so....

Still, I think people from out of town get confused by the sheer complexity of the system more than anything else. I remember trying to explain to a couple from New Zealand that they could take the 2 or the 3 from Park Place to Times Square, and they seemed to have trouble grasping the idea.

"2 or 3. They go the same way."

"Why have two different numbers, then?"

"They go different ways later on. But either will get you to Times Square since they're still together by then."

"Okay, but which is better?"

"Whichever comes first."

They still were confused, but they managed to get on the right train and get off at the right stop... after I said "Hey, this is your stop", anyway.

Or the guy on the A who kept looking at the map on the side of the car, confused:

"Where're you headed?"

"23rd Street"

"Oh, you need to get off and switch to the local"

"Ah, thanks!"

And this happened right as we were pulling into 14th Street. If I hadn't spoken up he'd have blown right by his stop on the express.

Or the valley girl and her friend who remained seated on the shuttle when it got to Grand Central as if they was going to stay on until the next stop or something.

Or the dumb blonde who got on an uptown 6 at Grand Central looking to go to Astor Place.

etc, etc.

One final question: is there some sort of class you take to learn about the subway? All this information is fascinating me; I've taken the subway almost every day of my adult life, and I've never really comprehended this much going into it. Kind of staggers you.quote>

No, I've never taken a class on it (is there such a thing anywhere?), I'm just a nerd who's brain is a sponge for such knowledge, picked up from various spots.

For starters, more than you'll ever care to know about the NYC subway can be learned at nycsubway.org. With more pictures than you'll ever care to look at.

For current events, I'd recommend Second Avenue Sagas.

[ndrwmls10 0]

Clearly you have many of your facts wrong. Chicago does in fact have a vast mass transit network which includes a few SUBWAYS. Also I due believe Chicago is getting a High Speed Rail that will connect it with other midwestern cities, while New York City will not be getting one anytime soon. Lake Michigan is an extremely large lake so you might as well be looking at the ocean. The coastline is absolutely beautiful and diverse. There is also a thing called the Chicago River which runs through many parts of the Downtown area. Hell there is even an Island formed by this river. Also Chicago is more diverse than New York City. In 2006 Demographic Reports concluded that around 39.9 of the population was white. New York City's was  44.6. Wouldn't you think that would make Chicago a more diverse city? Hmmmm I don't know. Also the mere fact that there are 1000's of buildings in New York City doesn't mean anything besides the fact that it's a complete mess of buildings. There is no cohesion and nothing stands out except perhaps The Empire State Building on a good day. The Chicago skyline represents perhaps the best cohesion of any skyline the world. It's is able to meld together many different styles of architecture and allow those buildings to stand out as well. But I digress....

[Walden95 8]

I'd say Chicago would be the better

Like NYC, Chicago is very historical and unique in it's own way. What started out as a swamp town trade center developed into a bustling settlement. It developed like any other settlement would. It didn't have too good of a grid. That all changed when the City burnt down. This created a great opportunity, and the city took advantage of it. They hired the most talented city planners to lay out an efficient grid with beautiful boulevards and such. New land space also led the city to become known as the place of birth of the skyscraper. Unlike many other cities, skyscrapers in Chicago have a special foundation system which the engineers had to use. Originating as a swamp town, there isn't really a bedrock.

Transit wise, the city could do better. There are expansions planned with the RED line being pushed deep into the suburbs and a second loop around the city. One thing for certain, we do have the busiest train intersection in the world. (It's in the loop). Besides the CTA (Chicago Transit Authority), the windy city does offer other options such as the METRA: an inter city  train network connecting the city and distant towns. (Even up into the state of Wisconsin) However, transit does not make a city, it helps support it.

Chicago's lakeshore is something to see. You might not think it's not that big, but you might as well stare out into the ocean. Even ontop of the Sears Tower or might I say Willis Tower now, you can't see all the way across. Chicago has it's beaches so you can take a swim (and won't have to worry about the dried salt afterwards). The city also has it's unique traditions. (One cool one is the dieing of the Chicago River green on St. Patricks Day)

The city has everything from a island in the river to the tallest building in the USA. Everything comes together quite beautify. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: ndrwmls10

Also I due believe Chicago is getting a High Speed Rail that will connect it with other midwestern cities, while New York City will not be getting one anytime soon.quote>

Well, the Acela does run through New York, although I don't blame you for not counting that.

As for serious HSR, I don't share your optimism about it being built anywhere in America at any time in the near future. We don't have the money.

And besides, NIMBYs make everything impossible in this country. Any HSR project would be too big to succeed.

[ndrwmls10 0]

 Sorry I was replying to a comment some idiot made that was filled with the worst logic and misinformation. I get pretty heated about it. 

The funding for the HSR has already been given at least for the Chicago/Milwaukee and Chicago/St. Louis Corridor. It will probably be finished in 5 years. It's also pretty popular and it will run along an existing train corridor. This should really help to join Chicago and Milwaukee together more so and make a megatropolis in the near future. With a HSR, commute time between the two cities would be less then an hour.