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.
I have no idea what you're arguing as my point was that the two systems are extremely different, and your stats confirms what I wrote, down to the details.
As I wrote, the elevated structures are #1 in Chicago. I didn't know if it was majority or plurality, so I wrote "probably majority". Then comes the freeway medians at grade level (exactly as I wrote), and then comes the small amounts of subway and street-running service (exactly as I wrote).
Your second point ("NYC has higher proportion of outside track") is quite obviously wrong, as we can see from your own posted stats.
Again, as I wrote, the NYC system is overwhelmingly underground, and only a relatively small proportion is elevated, and the Chicago system is overwhelmingly above-ground, and only a relatively small proportion is underground.
You have no idea what I was referring to? I don't mean to be facetious, but I'll refresh your memory. This is what you said and what I was responding to:
"The vast majority of the NYC subway is underground, not elevated. There are significant non-underground sections of the subway, but I don't think it's true that "most of NYC subways are elevated outside the city" (I assume by city you mean Manhattan)."
So, whether the MTA and CTA are very different, well, that's another argument. That said, I never said that NYC has a highest percentage of outside track than Chicago. I said that of the track that is outside, NYC has a higher percentage that rides on lines built on elevated structures [i.e. EL's] than Chicago does. So, am not wrong. What is wrong is that you are misinterpreting my words.
You have no idea what I was referring to? I don't mean to be facetious, but I'll refresh your memory. This is what you said and what I was responding to:
"The vast majority of the NYC subway is underground, not elevated. There are significant non-underground sections of the subway, but I don't think it's true that "most of NYC subways are elevated outside the city" (I assume by city you mean Manhattan)."
.
The posted stats confirm what I wrote. 68% of the NYC subway runs underground, and only a small proportion runs elevated. Not even a quarter of the trackage is either elevated or embankment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayarena
So, whether the MTA and CTA are very different, well, that's another argument. That said, I never said that NYC has a highest percentage of outside track than Chicago. I said that of the track that is outside, NYC has a higher percentage that rides on lines built on elevated structures [i.e. EL's] than Chicago does. So, am not wrong. What is wrong is that you are misinterpreting my words.
No, this is not true.
Again, in Chicago, it's 70% for elevated/embankment and in NYC, it's 24% for elevated/embankment. That's an enormous difference. How do you figure that 24% is a higher proportion than 70%?
The posted stats confirm what I wrote. 68% of the NYC subway runs underground, and only a small proportion runs elevated. Not even a quarter of the trackage is either elevated or embankment.
Not sure what there is left to debate now there is numbers. However, I wouldn't consider 68% the vast majority.
Again, in Chicago, it's 70% for elevated/embankment and in NYC, it's 24% for elevated/embankment. That's an enormous difference. How do you figure that 24% is a higher proportion than 70%?
He's not talking about comparing percentages. He's talking about comparing actual length in miles. The number of miles of elevated track the MTA has is greater than the number of track miles the CTA has in their total system of any kind.
He's not talking about comparing percentages. He's talking about comparing actual length in miles. The number of miles of elevated track the MTA has is greater than the number of track miles the CTA has in their total system of any kind.
He actually wrote "comparing percentages", not miles.
But if the argument is that "NYC has more miles of elevated track overall than Chicago", that's definitely possible. I don't really get the relevance, but I could see it. It's a much bigger system, so even much smaller percentages could be larger counts.
Unfortunately the MTA doesn't seem to break down the elevated type L structures and the embankment-style routes, while the CTA site does.
He actually wrote "comparing percentages", not miles.
But if the argument is that "NYC has more miles of elevated track overall than Chicago", that's definitely possible. I don't really get the relevance, but I could see it. It's a much bigger system, so even much smaller percentages could be larger counts.
Unfortunately the MTA doesn't seem to break down the elevated type L structures and the embankment-style routes, while the CTA site does.
if he said percentages or truly meant it, then I missed it. I had a source for that figure last night, but it's possible they were talking about revenue track instead of just plain track. If it was revenue track, then it may not be true. Either way, MTA has a lot of elevated track no matter how you look at it.
Like the B or Q in Brooklyn, or parts of the 5 in the Bronx.
It isn't a typical elevated track, and doesn't run on the street, but runs on an raised, earthen embankment. Take a look around Kings Highway, Avenue U or Sheepshead Bay stations, to take some examples.
There are also some examples of NJ Transit commuter rail lines with these types of embankments.
The posted stats confirm what I wrote. 68% of the NYC subway runs underground, and only a small proportion runs elevated. Not even a quarter of the trackage is either elevated or embankment.
No, this is not true.
Again, in Chicago, it's 70% for elevated/embankment and in NYC, it's 24% for elevated/embankment. That's an enormous difference. How do you figure that 24% is a higher proportion than 70%?
You state:
"Around 60-65% of the NYC system is underground, around 20-25% of the system is elevated, and around 15% of the system runs in the trenches."
Sixty percent of the NYC system is underground [not up to 65%] and 40% is exposed whether it be in entrenchments, embankments or ELs. That is what the MTA website states. I am saying that out of 40% that is exposed [which is by the way larger than the entire CTA system], the vast majority runs on Els. What part of that don't you understand? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but I don't know how else to put it. You keep on misinterpreting everything that I say.
That said, where do you get that 15% of the NY system runs in trenches? I like to see the source of your information, because the MTA municipal website doesn't break it down. It doesn't say what percentage of the exposed lines run on Els, on embankments, or trenches. You are speculating, you are not providing any sources or links, so with all due respect your stats don't prove anything other than your opinion. I provided you with links and in fact, you changed one of the stats that I gave you [and I'm not saying you did it on purpose], but even after I provided you with a link to the CTA that stated that 11.4 miles of Chicago rapid transit runs underground, You reduced that to 8 miles.
So, provide me with links to your unsubstantiated stats and then we can talk about actual percentages of NYC EL lines.
Last edited by Rayarena; 02-14-2014 at 01:51 PM..
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.
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.
