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 just gave you some real life facts: DC's population swells by 75% during the day. DC has a higher percentage of people using PT. DC's traffic is much worse. Union Station is #2 in the country behind Penn Station. Is that hustle and bustle. DT DC is on par with Chicago in terms of office space. DC metro has more office space than Chicagoland. You are cherry picking two streets in Chicago as your determination of what city is faster. I can pull hundreds of YouTube videos showing packed metro stations in DC to refute anthing you say. What does NYC have to do with this conversation. I've spent a considerable amount of time in Chicago so I can't say if it's faster or not but know that the DC is more of a workaholic, you need to prove yourself kind of place than Chicago is.
What does any of this have to do with which city has the larger crowds? That's what we were talking about. Do you not agree that high pedestrian volumes within the midst of a urban, downtown infrastructure makes a city feel "fast paced"?
Don't pull YouTube videos. Pull data.
I also don't see what difference it makes that the whole DC metro area, which includes a lot of low density suburbia, has more office space than Chicagoland. Chicago's core is much bigger and busier than DC's and a higher percentage of commuters take transit into the Downtown core. If Chicago were reduced to DC's mere 61 square miles, then it's ridership share would be as high if not higher than DC's.
Chicago has packed train stations too. And it actually has more stations in urban areas. Even in DC, a lot of the metro stations are park and rides (Rhode Island, Anacostia, Fort Totten, Minnesota Avenue, etc.) and serve more of a dual subway/commuter rail function. CTA is a bona fide subway that runs strictly within the city limits.
And data, of course. The pedestrian count on 7th Street--heading both north and south--was only 11,292. The Foot Locker on 125th Street probably has more people coming through it every day than that.
When people talk about the "fast pace" of NYC, they are usually referring to the hustle, bustle and crowds. Given that the highest pedestrian counts in Chicago are MUCH higher than the highest ones in DC, I think it's safe to say that Chicago is the faster-paced city. And it's not just along Michigan Avenue. The Loop has a lot of intersections that register much higher pedestrian counts than 7th and H Street combined. Read the Downtown Report.
1980s Chicago was far busier than November 2014 Downtown DC.
Where in DC is comparable to Fifth Avenue in terms of pedestrian volume?
Some very interesting data in the Chicago downtown report. Not to go off-topic but do you have similar data for Manhattan?
What does any of this have to do with which city has the larger crowds? That's what we were talking about. Do you not agree that high pedestrian volumes within the midst of a urban, downtown infrastructure makes a city feel "fast paced"?
Don't pull YouTube videos. Pull data.
I also don't see what difference it makes that the whole DC metro area, which includes a lot of low density suburbia, has more office space than Chicagoland. Chicago's core is much bigger and busier than DC's and a higher percentage of commuters take transit into the Downtown core. If Chicago were reduced to DC's mere 61 square miles, then it's ridership share would be as high if not higher than DC's.
Chicago has packed train stations too. And it actually has more stations in urban areas. Even in DC, a lot of the metro stations are park and rides (Rhode Island, Anacostia, Fort Totten, Minnesota Avenue, etc.) and serve more of a dual subway/commuter rail function. CTA is a bona fide subway that runs strictly within the city limits.
Shabba,
What you are doing is very skewed. You are pulling select streets (CHERRYPICKING) to make your argument. The argument is which city is faster paced. Transportation numbers don't lie. More people (BUSIER) are on transit in DC as a percentage than Chicago. It's significant. 35% versus something like 22%. DC has much worse (BUSIER) traffic. DC has a (BUSIER) Amtrak station during the week. Business people connect using Amtrak. Have you ever been to Chicago? The EL has street level grade crossing. The EL runs in the middle of a highway in the city. Please dont come on this board with "Ifs" anymore. The T runs in the burbs as well so your point about a bonifide subway is moot. Show me a picture of a packed Chicago train station. I can show you hundreds of Metro station videos where the crowds are busting at the seams. You are making this too easy.
Last edited by DC's Finest; 11-14-2014 at 08:47 AM..
So Boston is faster paced than DC? BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Pull some overall T numbers, daytime population increases, office space numbers and get back to me. They represent a wider picture of our argument instead of you cherry picking one or two streets because it's a pathetic reach.
Daytime population increases don't mean all that much because smaller cities with tons of suburbia (i.e., DC) grow a lot more than large cities that make up a larger share of their metros. I mean, DC "swells" more than NYC or Chicago do because 90% of the people in the MSA live outside of the city limits. That's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
But yeah, if Boston actually has more people in the streets than DC, then doesn't that at least suggest it might be faster-paced? My own impression of Boston is that it feels busier than DC and the data confirms that there are in fact more people walking around.
What you are doing is very skewed. You are pulling select streets (CHERRYPICKING) to make your argument. The argument is which city is faster paced. Transportation numbers don't lie. More people are on transit in DC as a percentage than Chicago. It's significant. 35% versus something like 22%. DC has much worse traffic. DC has a busier Amtrak station during the week. Business people connect using Amtrak. Have you ever been to Chicago? The EL has street level grade crossing. The EL runs in the middle of a highway in the city. Please dont come on this board with "Ifs" anymore. The T runs in the burbs as well so your point about a bonifide subway is moot. Show me a picture of a packed Chicago train station. I can show you hundreds of Metro station videos where the crowds are busting at the seams. You are making this too easy.
Why does everyone accuse me of "cherrypicking" after I go through the trouble of finding verifiable data to address a very specific point? We were talking about rush hour pedestrian crowds. I was told that I was "cherrypicking" YouTube videos. However, the traffic studies confirmed exactly what most people realize based on intuition: Downtown Chicago has much heavier pedestrian volumes than Downtown DC. The busiest intersection in Downtown Chicago is about 5 or 6 times busier than the busiest intersection in Downtown DC and is "comparable to the highest volumes along Fifth Avenue in New York." How lugheaded do you actually have to be to dismiss this?
Now you're turning to mode share (it's 38% vs 26%), which completely ignores the fact that Chicago's city limits are 3.5 times the size of DC's. That's not apples-to-apples. If you wanted to do a straight up comparison, then you would take Chicago's densest 61 square miles and compare it to the District of Columbia. That's exactly what I did for Central Los Angeles. Central LA actually has a larger population than DC by about 300,000, but it has fewer transit riders and fewer car free households (talking raw numbers here). Chicago, on the other hand, would likely demolish DC on every objective metric if we were to engage in the same exercise.
Chicago has the more intense core. I don't see this as being much of a debate. You guys are like a chihuahua attacking a rottweiler.
What you are doing is very skewed. You are pulling select streets (CHERRYPICKING) to make your argument. The argument is which city is faster paced. Transportation numbers don't lie. More people are on transit in DC as a percentage than Chicago. It's significant. 35% versus something like 22%. DC has much worse traffic. DC has a busier Amtrak station during the week. Business people connect using Amtrak. Have you ever been to Chicago? The EL has street level grade crossing. The EL runs in the middle of a highway in the city. Please dont come on this board with "Ifs" anymore. The T runs in the burbs as well so your point about a bonifide subway is moot. Show me a picture of a packed Chicago train station. I can show you hundreds of Metro station videos where the crowds are busting at the seams. You are making this too easy.
Wow... have you ever been to Chicago? It does not appear that you have. A busy train station in Chicago? During rush hour, my line is packed, as are the platforms. Many times riders need to let trains go by because they are so packed (Blue Line-Monroe). People queue up on the platform. And this is just one of many in the Loop that are full.
I work in DT Chicago and for several years travelled extensively to DC and worked downtown (G and 13th IIRC). Objectively, Chicago is simply vastly more vibrant. Way more foot traffic and consistent activity over a much broader area. And I say this fully aware that DC itself is a pretty vibrant place. But if you're going to be honest-- and if you have experience in both cities-- you *know* Chicago is simply just more vibrant, loads more pedestrian activity, etc. Not even sure why this thread and argument has lasted this long. Really not an argument here. Also, talk about taking this thread myopically off topic.
Daytime population increases don't mean all that much because smaller cities with tons of suburbia (i.e., DC) grow a lot more than large cities that make up a larger share of their metros. I mean, DC "swells" more than NYC or Chicago do because 90% of the people in the MSA live outside of the city limits. That's not an apples-to-apples comparison.
But yeah, if Boston actually has more people in the streets than DC, then doesn't that at least suggest it might be faster-paced? My own impression of Boston is that it feels busier than DC and the data confirms that there are in fact more people walking around.
Hmmmm. You are not making any sense. Daytime population increases have a direct effect on a city's pace of life. DC, which has a population of 650,000, grows by 75% during the day to over 1.1 million people. This effect does have an enormous bearing on the pace of life in the city? My data tells me that more than 500,000 people flood the city's core everyday and those people use transit in the morning, go to their offices, run errands, eat lunch, go to doctors appointments, happy hour, shop, and then use transit again to leave the city. You cannot hide 500,000 people. Give it up.
Why does everyone accuse me of "cherrypicking" after I go through the trouble of finding verifiable data to address a very specific point? We were talking about rush hour pedestrian crowds. I was told that I was "cherrypicking" YouTube videos. However, the traffic studies confirmed exactly what most people realize based on intuition: Downtown Chicago has much heavier pedestrian volumes than Downtown DC. The busiest intersection in Downtown Chicago is about 5 or 6 times busier than the busiest intersection in Downtown DC and is "comparable to the highest volumes along Fifth Avenue in New York." How lugheaded do you actually have to be to dismiss this?
Now you're turning to mode share (it's 38% vs 26%), which completely ignores the fact that Chicago's city limits are 3.5 times the size of DC's. That's not apples-to-apples. If you wanted to do a straight up comparison, then you would take Chicago's densest 61 square miles and compare it to the District of Columbia. That's exactly what I did for Central Los Angeles. Central LA actually has a larger population than DC by about 300,000, but it has fewer transit riders and fewer car free households (talking raw numbers here). Chicago, on the other hand, would likely demolish DC on every objective metric if we were to engage in the same exercise.
Chicago has the more intense core. I don't see this as being much of a debate. You guys are like a chihuahua attacking a rottweiler.
Why does everyone accuse me of "cherrypicking" after I go through the trouble of finding verifiable data to address a very specific point? We were talking about rush hour pedestrian crowds. I was told that I was "cherrypicking" YouTube videos. However, the traffic studies confirmed exactly what most people realize based on intuition: Downtown Chicago has much heavier pedestrian volumes than Downtown DC. The busiest intersection in Downtown Chicago is about 5 or 6 times busier than the busiest intersection in Downtown DC and is "comparable to the highest volumes along Fifth Avenue in New York." How lugheaded do you actually have to be to dismiss this?
Now you're turning to mode share (it's 38% vs 26%), which completely ignores the fact that Chicago's city limits are 3.5 times the size of DC's. That's not apples-to-apples. If you wanted to do a straight up comparison, then you would take Chicago's densest 61 square miles and compare it to the District of Columbia. That's exactly what I did for Central Los Angeles. Central LA actually has a larger population than DC by about 300,000, but it has fewer transit riders and fewer car free households (talking raw numbers here). Chicago, on the other hand, would likely demolish DC on every objective metric if we were to engage in the same exercise.
Chicago has the more intense core. I don't see this as being much of a debate. You guys are like a chihuahua attacking a rottweiler.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigLake
Wow... have you ever been to Chicago? It does not appear that you have. A busy train station in Chicago? During rush hour, my line is packed, as are the platforms. Many times riders need to let trains go by because they are so packed (Blue Line-Monroe). People queue up on the platform. And this is just one of many in the Loop that are full.
I work in DT Chicago and for several years travelled extensively to DC and worked downtown (G and 13th IIRC). Objectively, Chicago is simply vastly more vibrant. Way more foot traffic and consistent activity over a much broader area. And I say this fully aware that DC itself is a pretty vibrant place. But if you're going to be honest-- and if you have experience in both cities-- you *know* Chicago is simply just more vibrant, loads more pedestrian activity, etc. Not even sure why this thread and argument has lasted this long. Really not an argument here. Also, talk about taking this thread myopically off topic.
It's bizarre that the DC posters keep saying something that has been disproven by facts.
Wow... have you ever been to Chicago? It does not appear that you have. A busy train station in Chicago? During rush hour, my line is packed, as are the platforms. Many times riders need to let trains go by because they are so packed (Blue Line-Monroe). People queue up on the platform. And this is just one of many in the Loop that are full.
I work in DT Chicago and for several years travelled extensively to DC and worked downtown (G and 13th IIRC). Objectively, Chicago is simply vastly more vibrant. Way more foot traffic and consistent activity over a much broader area. And I say this fully aware that DC itself is a pretty vibrant place. But if you're going to be honest-- and if you have experience in both cities-- you *know* Chicago is simply just more vibrant, loads more pedestrian activity, etc. Not even sure why this thread and argument has lasted this long. Really not an argument here. Also, talk about taking this thread off topic.
I've been to Chicago hundreds of times. Matter of fact, i will be there on the 21st. I agree that Chicago is vibrant but that does not equate to faster pace. Austin, Texas is very vibrant. The trains in Chicago are not as crowded as DC. I've rode almost every line during rush hour and it's not the same activity. Chicago does have some packed streets but so does DC.
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.
