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.
It is, the MTA owns most of the Downstate trains and buses. But it still maintains separate subsidiaries to cover different areas. From a Long Island perspective, it is good we still have a separate railroad that looks after our interests. Metro North is similar, but it covers the northern suburbs of New York and Connecticut, and has some kind of arrangement with New Jersey to cover train service in Rockland and Orange Counties, NY.
Yeah NJ provides train and crew, while the MTA leases the stations in the NY Counties.
LIRR+MTA could potentially interline. Probably not in out lifetime, but its a possibility.
I do feel like for within the US, Chicago, SF, LA, and Miami have varying aspects of the big city feeling that NYC does, but Boston does not. This isn't a bad thing as that's not necessarily what people want.
I really don’t feel like SF seems like a big city why people feel such I don’t know. It’s way out on a peninsula (isthmus?) with SFHs everywhere and ornate wood buildings like Boston. But it feels more isolated from other urban communites like Oakland. I spent a week in SF and a month in the Bay. I don’t see it.
And really, even if they actually held to a real BRT standard, this still wouldn't be very good because for cities and airports for their size, the capacity and efficiency of BRT for this is the wrong tool. I agree the state of US transit infrastructure is maddening.
well we never learned this term in planning school or on the job at the state agencies LMAO.
Every city (in the world) has stadiums and historic districts, and its not like Wrigley Field is any less famous than Fenway.
The fact that stadiums, historic districts, and universities are at the top of the batting order for Boston is a pretty big clue to the answer to this poll question.
As opposed to a blob of metal? What about the Bunker Hill Monument- there’s plenty people come to see, for some reasons we send postcards out with giant citgo gas stations signs idk. What your point here?
And yea I would say wriggled field is less famous than Fenway because the team is less famous and Fenway is known to be the oldest pro sports stadium. Older than wrigley
I'm pretty sure "second city" is strictly a reference to the reconstruction of the city after the Chicago fire and has never been meant to imply any national rank.
Wrong. As I've already stated several times in this thread if you missed it 'second city' has been used in popular culture and media to describe Chicago for the last 100+ years when comparing to NY. It's still even used to this day but clearly not as much. It's been used in sports, media, food, architecture, music, and other mediums mostly when discussing a topic that involves NY vs Chicago.
It's been used so much throughout my life during Knicks-Bulls series, Jordan vs Ewing, Oprah vs Donahue, skyline vs skyline, pizza and on and on and on.
Not sure if I'm showing my age or if people just don't read or follow the media that much but I am quite surprised more people don't know this term in modern day references.
It's been alive and thriving wayyyy after the Chicago fire died out. If anything, I know almost no one who associates 'second city' with the Chicago fire. The Chicago fire is so long ago and no one is alive from that period of time anymore.
I believe SEPTA Regional Rail also still has some grade crossings, right? Still, it's a lot already in place!
Yes, it does, particularly along the Media/Wawa and Lansdale/Doylestown lines.
However, given that one of the CTA's rapid transit lines (Brown [Ravenswood]) has grade crossings at its outer end, I don't consider that a must-fix as much as a should-fix.
Quote:
I wouldn't put Boston ahead. MBTA seems a bit of a mess lately. Moreover, they don't have the key infrastructure of through-running tunnel between North and South station in place today which would be incredibly expensive due to US infrastructure costs. It's not just that the tunnel will be expensive, but because of how close to North and South Station respectively many of the lines start merging, they'll need to have multiple portals to merge the branch lines underground. MBTA has electrification only along a single line which they can't even get their **** together to use now despite that having been in place or decades.
Your point about the lack of through-running is well taken, but neither New York nor Chicago have that either.
Your response above speaks to LINative's point as well, and I acknowledge that a poorly run single agency may not be preferable to multiple better-run ones. But there is the matter of operational jurisdiction (and how trains are scheduled, dispatched and controlled) to weigh heavily against this. Consider, for instance, that even in Chicago, you do have a second agency (the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, whose trains follow the electrified ex-Illinois Central network into Dearborn Street Station) to coordinate scheduling and train movements with. Similarly, in New York, you would need an interstate agreement and some sort of operations-center coordination simply to operate regional service from, say, Montauk to Trenton (quite a distance: about 100 miles, if I'm not mistaken), even though trains coming from both meet at Penn Station because a New York State agency operates the trains crossing the East River and a New Jersey one operates the ones crossing the Hudson.
Wrong. As I've already stated several times in this thread if you missed it 'second city' has been used in popular culture and media to describe Chicago for the last 100+ years when comparing to NY. It's still even used to this day but clearly not as much. It's been used in sports, media, food, architecture, music, and other mediums mostly when discussing a topic that involves NY vs Chicago.
It's been used so much throughout my life during Knicks-Bulls series, Jordan vs Ewing, Oprah vs Donahue, skyline vs skyline, pizza and on and on and on.
Not sure if I'm showing my age or if people just don't read or follow the media that much but I am quite surprised more people don't know this term in modern day references.
It's been alive and thriving wayyyy after the Chicago fire died out. If anything, I know almost no one who associates 'second city' with the Chicago fire. The Chicago fire is so long ago and no one is alive from that period of time anymore.
Chicago was originally coined the second city because of the Great Fire and they quite literally rebuilt it from nothing, hence why Chicago has the best architecture in the country around the Loop.
Chicago was the second largest city in the country until 1990, it was number 2. The second city, so people rode with that.
But nobody calls Chicago 'the second city' anymore. The Windy City? Yes. But I have not heard Second City in years... By 1990 when Chicago became the third largest city, we probably just saw residual effects over time as the name lost popularity.
So Lofrisco is not wrong. If Chicago never burned to the ground Bronx style, it would have never been coined The Second City.
As opposed to a blob of metal? What about the Bunker Hill Monument- there’s plenty people come to see, for some reasons we send postcards out with giant citgo gas stations signs idk. What your point here?
And yea I would say wriggled field is less famous than Fenway because the team is less famous and Fenway is known to be the oldest pro sports stadium. Older than wrigley
The point is that Cloud Gate is a more recognizable piece of iconography associated to a city for a larger audience than a baseball stadium (a sport that's only gained popularity in a few countries).
Chicago was originally coined the second city because of the Great Fire and they quite literally rebuilt it from nothing, hence why Chicago has the best architecture in the country around the Loop.
Chicago was the second largest city in the country until 1990, it was number 2. The second city, so people rode with that.
But nobody calls Chicago 'the second city' anymore. The Windy City? Yes. But I have not heard Second City in years... By 1990 when Chicago became the third largest city, we probably just saw residual effects over time as the name lost popularity.
So Lofrisco is not wrong. If Chicago never burned to the ground Bronx style, it would have never been coined The Second City.
Did you even bother reading my response? Clearly not. If you did then your reply makes absolutely no sense lol
You are just too young and naive to know that Second City means a lot more than the Chicago fire.
You're kind of missing the 100+ years between then and present day. Otherwise, you may be onto something lol
Just because you didn't know any of the references I made about 'second city' doesn't mean they're not true.
It just means that you didn't know. So you and him are both wrong because you can't refute what I said as those are all real examples of using the term "second city' that have NOTHING to do with the Chicago fire.
That's what happens when you just google something and have no real life experience with certain terms.
Did you even bother reading my response? Clearly not. If you did then your reply makes absolutely no sense lol
You are just too young and naive to know that Second City means a lot more than the Chicago fire.
You're kind of missing the 100+ years between then and present day. Otherwise, you may be onto something lol
Just because you didn't know any of the references I made about 'second city' doesn't mean they're not true.
It just means that you didn't know. So you and him are both wrong because you can't refute what I said as those are all real examples of using the term "second city' that have NOTHING to do with the Chicago fire.
That's what happens when you just google something and have no real life experience with certain terms.
Before we derail-that is not what I said. In summary, I validated one poster, then validated your points and finally hypothesized why the term came and waned.
Did you even read my post? You called Lofrisco wrong and I said he wasn't since that is where the term originated form. I then agreed with you and said, the name just gained popularity as Chicago became the second city (literally). In 1990, when Chicago came the third city, the use of 'second city' waned. Hence, my generation came in and that's not a term used anymore. So yeah, obviously your experiences are valid, I didn't say that.. I said it's not used today probably because... well, it s the 'third' largest city. The examples you gave were great, but they were again, when Chicago was the second city. I just don't feel I need to annotate everything a poster makes. We can infer that I understood what you meant.
I really don't care if I am in my 20s. We all have different perspective's and experiences to put in. In general... Sometimes its good to get outside opinions to paint a broad umbrella for our own internal biases.
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.
