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.
Some of the Green Line is underground. The majority of it is above ground or in an open trench (the latter is still pretty good as are enbankments and elevated!). It's somewhat fun to ride the branches and go end to end, but it's generally not very fast except for the D branch which is better. I think we probably both know this from experience that it's not very fast especially when outside of the tunneling in and near downtown.
The Green Line's a mix with some parts run more like rapid transit in parts and a lot more of it is not. It also doesn't have very high capacity. It generally would not be considered rapid transit given what's outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit Those aren't my definitions.
I didn't say it was more like a bus than it was like rapid transit. It somewhat sits in between both, but I think the terminology doesn't quite fit right here since buses can also have grade separation and some buses have higher capacity than the Green Line sets do. The bus vs rail thing is more about rubber on asphalt wheels versus steel on steel track trains, but even that has some oddball fits. For parts that are more like bus service in how I think you're using the term, it'd be more along the lines the vehicle capacity or track that has to sit with traffic signals, or even worse, the parts of it that are actually in mixed traffic. In other parts like the subway tunnel and the grade-separated portions act more like rapid transit.
It's great that the Green Line extensions are mostly grade-separated. I really wish the extensions weren't so short, especially for the cost, but in the US you take what you can.
Boston's definitely better off to have the Green Line than not and many cities around the world put light rail to fairly good use. It is not the same as rapid transit though it shares elements of it in parts. There are sort of other terms for this though like light rail or premetro in parts and the like. There's also a gradient of sorts when talking about commuter rail and rapid transit. For example, Metra Electric along some parts exhibits some attributes of what you'd expect from a rapid transit line. I would love for the E branch to act at least somewhat similarly to the other branches that are at-grade and have its median be dedicated rather than in mix traffic and for it to extend back out, with this dedicated median, back out to Arborway. I think the Somerville extension should go all the way to the West Medford commuter rail stop so that it can in the future act as a sort of local / express service interchange point for whenever Boston actually gets itself together enough to do the North-South Rail link and start having frequent, electrified, through-running regional rail service. Similarly, the D branch should be extended to at least Porter. I also think MBTA should consider splitting the Green Line in terms of signage / graphics in order to make it clear which branches on a map has it going where as the Green Line in a way is essentially a separate light rail system.
Transit in the Chicago area has a slight edge over transit in Boston when in the context of a comparison to New York City's transit system which is at an altogether different tier and dwarves what Chicago and Boston have. Without NYC to tip the scale, then it's much harder to argue it's just a slight edge. However, this topic *does* include NYC and so it does make these systems look lilliputian in comparison.
The CTA abc MBTA are pretty close by objective metrics. The MBTA has higher equal ridership to the CTA. And the MBTA is 80% of CTA+Metra. Even leaving New York out of it they’re in the same weight class
Boston is not represented in pop culture as having the stature being implied in this thread. If I"m wrong, tell me how.
The thing is - and this really is what it comes down to - you’ve never been. You’re using anecdotal hearsay, and hanging onto to arguments like the number of high rises (which, by the way, is intentional/self inflicted in Boston due to shadow laws).
Nobody is saying Boston is as big, or as fun, or as polarizing as Chicago. We are saying, compared to NYC, Chicago is more akin to Boston. Those are very different things.
I would argue Boston is, at the very least, proportionately represented in pop culture.
Boston has become a pretty popular city for films/filming, and a disproportionate number of shows and movies have been based in Boston over the last two decades. Of which, you have some of the most notable movies made in that period. And I don’t think it’s short on A-List celebrities, though it’s a pretty one demensional list. So comlared to LA or NYC? Of course. Compared to Chicago in the 2000s? I don’t think so. And people from Boston, as I’m sure you’ve realized on CD, often make it known. I think most anyone who likes film knows Matt Damon, John Krasinski, Mark Wahlberg, Ben Affleck, Chris Evans are from Boston. All it takes is a single interview or late night talk show. Sure, you have the Steve Carrells of the world who you might not realize. But I think you see Boston in the spotlight a fair amount.
It’s been very well represented in the world of comedy and late night talk show. I don’t think that needs to be explained.
And while for some strange reason, a lot of people on this site dont think sports influence a cities notoriety, it does. It’s literally the first thing someone says when I say I’m from Chicago or Boston. For its size, Boston has the most valuable franchises in North America. Almost dead on with Chicago, who has one more team, and a 2x population. E.g. Bostons franchises are worth nearly 2x Philadelphias, and way more than Houston’s, Atlantas, San Francisco’s, etc.
So really - when it comes to pop culture and visibility - The areas that Boston underwhelms is music. Plenty of bands and artists over the years, but not a lot of output lately.
Now can you explain why you don’t agree? Or why Chicago is more similar to NYC in pop culture today?
Plenty of bands and artists over the years, but not a lot of output lately.
While not from the metro originally, Noah Kahan does live in Watertown and features Boston in a a handful of his songs. And he’s definitely been featured on a lot of friends’ (from both within and outside New England) Spotify “Wrapped” in the last 24hrs.
Certain threads seem to get prematurely closed, but this one has been off the rails for at least a month...
Its about legacy cities so no one reports it.
Say "Houston is great" in a thread about Houston and it will be reported before you can hit submit reply.
See how fast that thread about Sunbelt cities becoming the new it cities got reported.
This thread has been off the rails for eons. We could write an essay from all we have learned about rail, but it is Boston and Chicago so it's cool.
Legacy cities can boost till the cows come home. I have seen these same rail arguments so many times. It's more in depth than I ever care to hear. All that above ground, below ground, 140 miles vs 160 miles is just too deep in the weeds.
Things that are super important to other areas, such as job growth or diversifying economy gets slapped down quick. Idk why other areas can't post about things happening in their areas but the legacy folks can talk about who can pee the furthest for dozens of pages. Some will say " if you don't want to see it, don't come in the thread" but it would be nice if they did the same for other places because other places threads gets shut down.
Some of the Green Line is underground. The majority of it is above ground or in an open trench (the latter is still pretty good as are enbankments and elevated!). It's somewhat fun to ride the branches and go end to end, but it's generally not very fast except for the D branch which is better. I think we probably both know this from experience that it's not very fast especially when outside of the tunneling in and near downtown.
The Green Line's a mix with some parts run more like rapid transit in parts and a lot more of it is not. It also doesn't have very high capacity. It generally would not be considered rapid transit given what's outlined here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit Those aren't my definitions.
I didn't say it was more like a bus than it was like rapid transit. It somewhat sits in between both, but I think the terminology doesn't quite fit right here since buses can also have grade separation and some buses have higher capacity than the Green Line sets do. The bus vs rail thing is more about rubber on asphalt wheels versus steel on steel track trains, but even that has some oddball fits. For parts that are more like bus service in how I think you're using the term, it'd be more along the lines the vehicle capacity or track that has to sit with traffic signals, or even worse, the parts of it that are actually in mixed traffic. In other parts like the subway tunnel and the grade-separated portions act more like rapid transit.
It's great that the Green Line extensions are mostly grade-separated. I really wish the extensions weren't so short, especially for the cost, but in the US you take what you can.
Boston's definitely better off to have the Green Line than not and many cities around the world put light rail to fairly good use. It is not the same as rapid transit though it shares elements of it in parts. There are sort of other terms for this though like light rail or premetro in parts and the like. There's also a gradient of sorts when talking about commuter rail and rapid transit. For example, Metra Electric along some parts exhibits some attributes of what you'd expect from a rapid transit line. I would love for the E branch to act at least somewhat similarly to the other branches that are at-grade and have its median be dedicated rather than in mix traffic and for it to extend back out, with this dedicated median, back out to Arborway. I think the Somerville extension should go all the way to the West Medford commuter rail stop so that it can in the future act as a sort of local / express service interchange point for whenever Boston actually gets itself together enough to do the North-South Rail link and start having frequent, electrified, through-running regional rail service. Similarly, the D branch should be extended to at least Porter. I also think MBTA should consider splitting the Green Line in terms of signage / graphics in order to make it clear which branches on a map has it going where as the Green Line in a way is essentially a separate light rail system.
Transit in the Chicago area has a slight edge over transit in Boston when in the context of a comparison to New York City's transit system which is at an altogether different tier and dwarves what Chicago and Boston have. Without NYC to tip the scale, then it's much harder to argue it's just a slight edge. However, this topic *does* include NYC and so it does make these systems look lilliputian in comparison.
Much of the MTA 40% per your own link is above ground, a lot of the CTA is also above ground. Yeah portions of the green line are at grade but I really do not think it’s the majority, and where it does it usually has right of ways. Chicago has a little more mileage because it’s a larger city and like 15 more stations but they’re obviously in the same class. I think we both know greenline is rapid transit. It literally started as the Tremont Street Subway (first in the country) The link says even if some of its is above ground it’s still considered rapid transit if the system goes underground or is elevated. It also has the shortest headways of any line.
I’ve ridden the Metra from Hyde Park to Millenium Park, it’s solid-but does remind me of the commuter rail. But what I found was large swaths of the south side do not have reasonable access to the train.
In my opinion the Orange Line is the one that should be extended southward along Washington Street or Hyde Park Ave could replace or buttress service on the 34(E)/32/36/35. Straight down to Wolcott square or down to the Dedham Mall.
You're clearly younger than I am, so I guess I can believe this, but I can't believe you haven't heard any of the following songs:
[.
I’ve never heard these. Definitely know “more than a feeling” though without hesitation.
Idk my father I think it’s your age- he’s 68 soon to be 69, with a pile or fl records 7/8 feet tall. Just no “Chicago”, no “Boston” either but more than a feeling has been in a bunch of commercials.
I’m sure he has soul groups from Chicago that I’m not aware are from Chicago just cuz it wasn’t mentioned.
I’ve never heard these. Definitely know “more than a feeling” though without hesitation.
Idk my father I think it’s your age- he’s 68 soon to be 69, with a pile or fl records 7/8 feet tall. Just no “Chicago”, no “Boston” either but more than a feeling has been in a bunch of commercials.
I’m sure he has soul groups from Chicago that I’m not aware are from Chicago just cuz it wasn’t mentioned.
Yeah, your dad and I are about the same age — I just turned 65.
I'll bet that somewhere in his record collection he has something by either the Chi-Lites or the Five Stairsteps. The latter band was the Jackson 5 of soul before there was a Jackson Five. Their last big hit is on Rolling Stone's list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time:
One of my all-time favorites, it's a hopeful tune with a great beat and melody. I used to sing it all the time at karaoke nights.
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.
