Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah another difference is Light rail is like people mover it moves on ground has to stop at traffic lights. marta subway system is elevated in the air and also run underground away from traffic.
Not all light rail stops at traffic lights. Most systems go elevated or under ground at traffic lights. Hell, there are light rail systems with many underground portions, so you're wrong on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlantaATL
Houston and Dallas systems run on the ground and they run next too traffic and traffic lights. there not elevated. But i did ride one of thos things in dallas when i went ill be going to dallas at the end of this month
Uh...Dallas light rail has its own ROW, so no, it does not stop at traffic lights. It is at street level, but that doesn't matter. It goes elevated over roads, etc. You sure you rode the rail in Dallas?
I'm talking about DART being elevated to Love Field.
DART won't exactly have a station at Love Field. It will be outside of it with a people mover or bus connecting to the station. Not far from it but not technically at Love Field. Now DART will have a station at DFW.
without a doubt..cant say I wouldn't laugh a little if someone said the same about the SF Bay rising and drowning the whole metro..even Bill O'Reilly gave the terrorists approval to blow SF off the map,lol.
This is what Long Island did years ago. It's been around since the 1800s. Some places on LI have elevated tracks. Maybe they'll eventually do this. It's a good idea since it doesn't block traffic.
Thats the South Shore Line (Montauk Line) I think. Looks like the built up downtown area of Rockville Centre in western Nassau. Many LIRR railroad branches however, especially in Suffolk are still at ground level.
It seems clearly better than Chicago (at least from my experiences) in terms of number of things to do, weather, and proximity to other interesting places. Houston is near Galveston, a short car/train ride (in the future) from Austin, San Antonio, Dallas. Chicago is the only big town for 1000s of miles. The entire cultural life of Chicago seems to consist of getting drunk on cold nights. Houston offers lots of museums, arts, etc., in addition to more clubs/bars than you could ever want. Why doesn't it get more love?
Also "natural beauty" isn't the reason - Chicago is cold and bleak most of the year and is just as flat as Houston. Houston is lush and green year-round.
I would put the U.S. cities like this:
L.A. > NY > SF> Houston > Chicago
I'm not going to come here and bash Houston because I like it but c'mon as a native chicagoan the winters suck but cold weather only lasts from like mid-November to mid-March. People think it's like a damn tundra all year as if chicago is in Alaska or something.
And as far as other cities in proximity, Milwaukee is only 90 miles away, St. Louis is at the least 3.5 hrs away and Detroit (yes Detroit) is as close to Chicago as Houston - Dallas. Even Cleveland is not that far away. Not to mention a bunch of other smaller cities. Houston is kinda underrated but you cant knock chicago off just yet.
I'm not gonna lie I'll take Houston winters over Chicago winters any day, but during the summer there's just too much to do and so many people outside in chicago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.