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.
The report only shows Philadelphia by itself and Wilmington separately, and doesn't even include Paulsboro and Marcus Hook, which are large ports in themselves and handle a lot of crude oil and petroleum. Other ports include New Castle, Camden, Penn Manor and Chester. What is the explanation for this?
I don't know. Do we know for sure what is counted for Philadelphia there? Or do you think it's a conspiracy?
I guess what I'm saying is that, if ALL of those individual ports, since they are not on that list, are going to be less than 20,000 TEU each (since that's the bottom number on that list), then all seven of those together are at most 140,000 TEU (that's assuming the highest possible, without seeing the actual numbers), which added to Wilmington + Philly, is still not going to get the total number anywhere remotely close to top 5. Seems like it might be #21 at best.
(Or maybe #20 if Long Beach & LA similarly got counted together as one, since those ports are literally right next to each other but counted separately on the list)
Because...you made a totally ridiculous statement, and there absolutely are rats in Philadelphia as well as every other city?
I never got rats in any apartment I ever lived in in any city(Philly & NYC included), but my friend did get some in her apartment in Center City.
Will you now tell us there are no cockroaches in Philly apts either?
If so, I will give you some more "the confused for" emoticons!
Because...you made a totally ridiculous statement, and there absolutely are rats in Philadelphia as well as every other city?
I never got rats in any apartment I ever lived in in any city(Philly & NYC included), but my friend did get some in her apartment in Center City.
Will you now tell us there are no cockroaches in Philly apts either?
If so, I will give you some more "the confused for" emoticons!
There are rats in Rittenhouse Square park that's for sure, but I know most of which make their way into apartments are mice and not rats.
I would think that if you're seeing stats that have the West Coast being far busier than the East Coast, then it's probably a good idea to check the methodology behind it.
Hmm, because the west coast handles trade with Asia and all it must be much less trade overall than the E Coast?
There is no denying that LA/Long Beach is *by far* the largest port in the country, and it is all one contiguous port. There are whole suspension bridges to fill islandSss dominated by dozens of post-panamax cranes. Nothing comes close, either on paper, or just plain visually.
Similarly, the Port of Oakland handles far more container traffic than all by 2 E Coast ports. It visually appears much larger, has far more ships (and large Post-Panamax ships too) at its berths at any given time, more cranes, more basins, etc. Similarly, Ports of Seattle AND Tacoma.
All of the west coast ports are quite large. There's also a reason that SoCal is the largest warehouse/distribution center in the country, by far. There's also a reason for all of those insanely busy railroads connecting the west coast to the rest of the country (for anyone who has ever driven cross country and noticed immense trains crossing the plains and the deserts typically coming East).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summersm343
Getting back to the actual subject of the thread, Philly definitely looks the more like NYC than San Francisco does.
Yes, overall Philly "appears" more like NYC in that it has more old brick structures, brick rowhomes, etc. However, you can't just cherry pick SF's most wooden fisherman village area (Telegraph Hill area) to point out that it looks nothing like NYC - essentially what you did was point out that SF overall has a unique look that isn't replicated literally anywhere else. The Tenderloin/Tendernob look like parts of Manhattan/Brooklyn that simply aren't replicated in any way in Philly. Also, SF's financial district is much more similar to Manhattan with wider streets, denser canyons, wider sidewalks (and much more crowded sidewalks), more crowded trains, etc etc.
Hmm, because the west coast handles trade with Asia and all it must be much less trade overall than the E Coast?
There is no denying that LA/Long Beach is *by far* the largest port in the country, and it is all one contiguous port. There are whole suspension bridges to fill islandSss dominated by dozens of post-panamax cranes. Nothing comes close, either on paper, or just plain visually.
Similarly, the Port of Oakland handles far more container traffic than all by 2 E Coast ports. It visually appears much larger, has far more ships (and large Post-Panamax ships too) at its berths at any given time, more cranes, more basins, etc. Similarly, Ports of Seattle AND Tacoma.
All of the west coast ports are quite large. There's also a reason that SoCal is the largest warehouse/distribution center in the country, by far. There's also a reason for all of those insanely busy railroads connecting the west coast to the rest of the country (for anyone who has ever driven cross country and noticed immense trains crossing the plains and the deserts typically coming East).
Yes, overall Philly "appears" more like NYC in that it has more old brick structures, brick rowhomes, etc. However, you can't just cherry pick SF's most wooden fisherman village area (Telegraph Hill area) to point out that it looks nothing like NYC - essentially what you did was point out that SF overall has a unique look that isn't replicated literally anywhere else. The Tenderloin/Tendernob look like parts of Manhattan/Brooklyn that simply aren't replicated in any way in Philly. Also, SF's financial district is much more similar to Manhattan with wider streets, denser canyons, wider sidewalks (and much more crowded sidewalks), more crowded trains, etc etc.
Other than a very small section in Manhattan, San Francisco doesn't look more like NYC in appearance compared to Philly. It's even more evident when you compare it to the outer boroughs. Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx look more similar to Philly in appearance than it ever will with San Francisco. How can a city on the west coast look more northeastern in appearance than an actual northeastern city? To me that makes no sense.
Reading comprehension continues to lack. I never said it looked more like NYC, just responded to a post to point out that parts of SF do in fact have a Manhattan look, and getting over the look, SF has a much more New York "feel".
Reading comprehension continues to lack. I never said it looked more like NYC, just responded to a post to point out that parts of SF do in fact have a Manhattan look, and getting over the look, SF has a much more New York "feel".
Even that's a questionable statement to make at best. One can make a strong argument that Center City "feels" more similar to Manhattan than San Francisco's financial district. I've been to SF's financial district. I don't see the New York "feel" that makes it so much more similar to NYC than Center City does. Even with your so called wider streets and "allegedly" more crowded sidewalks and trains(which is extremely subjective). Funny you would bring up mass transit as both Philly and NYC offer 24-hour subway service, which is something San Francisco clearly doesn't offer. When you compare the city as a whole and not nitpick, its clearly obvious that Philly has more in common with NYC than San Francisco does, especially when it comes to the look and feel of both cities.
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.