Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which city is a good place for people from a small town.
Washington DC 22 33.85%
Chicago 43 66.15%
Voters: 65. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-14-2014, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
32,108 posts, read 34,720,210 times
Reputation: 15093

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar View Post
Exits do not though which is why we should use EL and WMATA exit data. Its the only way to see how many people actually exit without double counting.
That doesn't tell you how many people are actually on the street. You can arrive to the CBD on a bus or by commuter rail as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-14-2014, 11:11 AM
 
1,833 posts, read 2,351,798 times
Reputation: 963
To say DC is Dubai is a bit too far and too much
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 11:12 AM
 
5,347 posts, read 10,161,008 times
Reputation: 2446
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Alright...so let's get this straight everybody. In the "fast paced," mean and rude, outta my way department, the rankings go thusly:

Manhattan
DC



Chicago

Boston
San Francisco
Philly


Sound about right?
Anybody that thinks Boston, Philly or SF are more fast paced than DC should be turned over to ISIS. Number don't lie B. Chicago is up there with DC. Boston is like one of the most laid back cities on the east coast. I was on the Blue Line, which goes to the suburbs (imagine that Bajan) on a Monday morning coming from Logan and it wasn't even crowded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 11:14 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C.
13,728 posts, read 15,760,072 times
Reputation: 4081
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
That doesn't tell you how many people are actually on the street. You can arrive to the CBD on a bus or by commuter rail as well.

Yes, but it does give a better understanding of how many people are coming by transit and not being double counted. D.C.'s downtown is just way larger than Chicago so people are exiting the train over a much greater distance. That is why this is really hard to compare anyway. The smaller the blocks, the harder it is to get an accurate pedestrian count. People can get block to block much faster and create a more intense vibrancy. It's like a car going around in circles creating traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
32,108 posts, read 34,720,210 times
Reputation: 15093
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC's Finest View Post
Anybody that thinks Boston, Philly or SF are more fast paced than DC should be turned over to ISIS. Number don't lie B. Chicago is up there with DC. Boston is like one of the most laid back cities on the east coast. I was on the Blue Line, which goes to the suburbs (imagine that Bajan) on a Monday morning coming from Logan and it wasn't even crowded.
Which numbers? DC has higher transit ridership than Boston, but then Boston's pedestrian activity pummels DC's into the ground. It's also denser than DC.

So which one matters more? How crowded a train is? Or how crowded the streets are? Of course, you guys will claim the former because it favors your argument.

DC doesn't even have 24-hour train service. So that ends the "fast paced" argument right there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C.
13,728 posts, read 15,760,072 times
Reputation: 4081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deluusions View Post
To say DC is Dubai is a bit too far and too much

It was a joke. I was just saying D.C. is booming! You guys need to smile sometimes, you're way to serious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
32,108 posts, read 34,720,210 times
Reputation: 15093
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar View Post
Yes, but it does give a better understanding of how many people are coming by transit and not being double counted. D.C.'s downtown is just way larger than Chicago so people are exiting the train over a much greater distance. That is why this is really hard to compare anyway. The smaller the blocks, the harder it is to get an accurate pedestrian count. People can get block to block much faster and create a more intense vibrancy. It's like a car going around in circles creating traffic.
What the hell are you talking about? DC's downtown is not larger than Chicago's. What are you smoking?

It is not difficult to get accurate pedestrian counts. They can get accurate counts in Times Square and in London but they can't get an accurate count along 7th Street? GTFOH!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 11:18 AM
 
1,833 posts, read 2,351,798 times
Reputation: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar View Post
It was a joke. I was just saying D.C. is booming! You guys need to smile sometimes, you're way to serious.
Thought you were serious haha but yes it is
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C.
13,728 posts, read 15,760,072 times
Reputation: 4081
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Which numbers? DC has higher transit ridership than Boston, but then Boston's pedestrian activity pummels DC's into the ground. It's also denser than DC.

So which one matters more? How crowded a train is? Or how crowded the streets are? Of course, you guys will claim the former because it favors your argument?

DC doesn't even have 24-hour train service. So that ends the "fast paced" argument right there.

Are you saying Boston is more vibrant across the city or in certain areas? Boston is more intense in its small core, but is it more virbant over a larger area like the size of D.C.'s core for instance? Philly is more more vibrant than D.C. in its downtown, but D.C. is more virbant in its core, but then Philly is more vibrant across the whole city. There are levels to this argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2014, 11:19 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee
3,453 posts, read 4,530,831 times
Reputation: 2987
It's hilarious watching 3 extreme DC homers trying to defend a completely indefensible position vs the rest of the world. Incredible meltdown! Likely will not last long as a live thread, however...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top