San Francisco vs. Chicago (twist: native Californian) (life, downtown, size)
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.
That's why. Standard doesn't know what he's talking about and decided to bring it up.
SF's core is NOT comparable to Chicago's in size. You clearly have not been to one of these and I'm guessing Chicago. Prestigious? So being full of homeless meth addicts makes a place more prestigious now? Wow...the definition of that word has changed a lot. And Union Square may be nice, but Michigan Ave blows it out of the water. Beach access a few blocks away is also better.
Chicago is DEFINITELY close to NYC and WAY BEYOND Boston!
Chicago's ridership and metro system in general is better.
Chicago is much larger than SF in terms of city and MSA.
I will give you this. You're definitely consistent.
This entire post was 100%, unadulterated BS. Not one claim was true.
It's just like someone posting "Baltimore is the greatest city in the world and Tokyo is just meth addicts and commies, and pink elephants are flying around my house". It makes about that much sense.
Uh, thanks for repeating word-for-word what I previously wrote.
So I guess we both "have no idea what we're talking about" because you just wrote the exact same thing as me?
The irony of 1. Using Wiki as "actual statistics" and then 2. Posting to a Wiki that contradicts your claim (that Chicago has higher proportion of transit riders) will no doubt be lost on you. Maybe next time read your link.
So your claim is that Chicago has more transit trips overall, just not to work? Wrong again. SF has a higher share of transit trips per capita.
I doubt that's true, and, in any case, it doesn't matter. Why would you compare to metros by only looking at 5% of the respective metros? But, even using this crazy logic, I would bet core Chicago has similar or higher car ridership share than core SF.
"Pure ridership" means nothing without context of relative size. But you're wrong (again), as transit trips are overall around the same in Bay Area compared to Chicagoland.
What I'm saying is that if you took the same size are as the city of SF and laid it over Chicago, transit share would not be higher in SF. Chicago is much larger in area, therefore you can't compare them as such. Transit riders to work does not equal a better transit system or prove its usability. BART is a complete joke unless you're trying to get to downtown SF. Everywhere is pointless. And it barely works. It's often delayed or on strike or broken.
Actually I did the math just now. Added daily ridership of the L and CTA divided by the Chicago population (9.8 million). Then added daily ridership of BART and Muni divided by the Bay Area (7.4 million). Chicago has 17.65% of its population taking transit per day while the Bay Area as 11.9% taking transit. Happy now?
I will give you this. You're definitely consistent.
This entire post was 100%, unadulterated BS. Not one claim was true.
It's just like someone posting "Baltimore is the greatest city in the world and Tokyo is just meth addicts and commies, and pink elephants are flying around my house". It makes about that much sense.
Muni is a pure joke compared to the L. And BART stops running at like 11pm or 12am. The L is open 24/7. I'd say that makes Chicago better right there. Muni is the slowest and lowest rated major transit system in the country.
The city of Chicago is 3x the population of the city of SF. The SF-Oak-Hayward metro is 4.5 mil while the Chicago metro is 9.5 mil.
What I'm saying is that if you took the same size are as the city of SF and laid it over Chicago, transit share would not be higher in SF.
So your claim is that if we did a weird, non-apples-apples comparison between the two cities, then one city would not have higher transit share than the other.
In other words, you have no claim. You aren't arguing anything, saying anything, and you don't have any data anyways. You're just making up stuff. We already have neighborhood-level Census commute share, and Chicago isn't higher than SF. Someplace like the Misson or Tenderloin isn't more car-oriented than Lincoln Park or Lakeview. These places are actually somewhat less car-oriented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
Chicago is much larger in area, therefore you can't compare them as such.
I have no idea what this means. NYC is much larger than Chicago in area, so Chicago should have higher transit share? Huh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
Transit riders to work does not equal a better transit system or prove its usability. BART is a complete joke unless you're trying to get to downtown SF. Everywhere is pointless. And it barely works. It's often delayed or on strike or broken.
We already know that SF has higher overall ridership, and no one is talking about "transit riders to work". The rest of your BART-related comments are just trolling nonsense. If it "barely works" then why does it have so many riders? You think other transit agencies don't have problems? The Chicago L is much older and generally in worse shape, and just had a runway train crash into the airport station a few weeks ago, and has had multiple crashes in recent years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
Actually I did the math just now. Added daily ridership of the L and CTA divided by the Chicago population (9.8 million). Then added daily ridership of BART and Muni divided by the Bay Area (7.4 million). Chicago has 17.65% of its population taking transit per day while the Bay Area as 11.9% taking transit. Happy now?
No, because you have no math skills. Those aren't all the transit agencies in either metro area (in fact you missed like half the ridership in the SF area), and we already have official Census stats that show SF has higher metro area ridership.
[=marothisu;34756634]You misinterpreted again. I was talking about building stock and the condition some of it is in - not street vibrancy. We're talking about "crime filled ghetto" which connotes dilapidated and boarded up buildings. I'm saying that there are some actual nice stuff down there that's still well in tact and well taken care of. The neighborhood is just dangerous, unfortunately.[/quote]
Some street view of WEST Englewood as defined by google maps:
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.
