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 think because these three systems were built/opened in the 1970s, have similar trainsets and technology and were designed to be the antithesis of older systems in NYC, Chicago, Philly, or Boston. LA's Metro system is a combination of both light and heavy rail, and doesn't have the 70s era quirks of these systems.
MARTA is easily the weakest of these three due to the lack of comprehensive coverage throughout Atlanta and it's closer in suburbs compared to BART and WMATA's metro. BUT MARTA does connect the airport with several business districts in the area. Now if only it could be extended...
True. MARTA's coverage is much weaker and all 3 seem very 1970s. Especially BART.
LA's is pretty cutting edge. They have some sound proof underground stations and brand new above ground light rail stations. It's going to change the city so much with all the planned expansion projects over the next 10 years.
True. MARTA's coverage is much weaker and all 3 seem very 1970s. Especially BART.
LA's is pretty cutting edge. They have some sound proof underground stations and brand new above ground light rail stations. It's going to change the city so much with all the planned expansion projects over the next 10 years.
That's nice. I used to live in Los Angeles and am aware of the ever expanding metro. It has nothing to do with this particular thread though.
Dude , you replied to my comment first. Another lame attempt. Back to topic, how would you rank the three systems? That's the question at hand yet you havnet answered it.
No. You claimed MARTA was useless, and doesn't connect the City. I pointed out that MARTA provides a one seat ride from the Airport to 3 of our 4 main business districts. What exactly is lame in regard to defending our system against lies? You really need to get your anti-Atlanta agenda straight before you post.
And everyone that keeps up with this sort of thing is already aware that all 3 systems connect to an Airport. MARTA is the only one that terminates inside the Airport, and the only one that provides the aforementioned single seat ride to the most important areas.
No. You claimed MARTA was useless, and doesn't connect the City. I pointed out that MARTA provides a one seat ride from the Airport to 3 of our 4 main business districts. What exactly is lame in regard to defending our system against lies? You really need to get your anti-Atlanta agenda straight before you post.
And everyone that keeps up with this sort of thing is already aware that all 3 systems connect to an Airport. MARTA is the only one that terminates inside the Airport, and the only one that provides the aforementioned single seat ride to the most important areas.
Try again.
I specifically said Marta is bad for getting around within the city... distort that however you'd like. So again, rank the three systems per the point of the thread.... I think it's DC>Bart>Marta.
I specifically said Marta is bad for getting around within the city... distort that however you'd like. So again, rank the three systems per the point of the thread.... I think it's DC>Bart>Marta.
DC metro then BART then MARTA. Dc is the clear best of these. BART next on ridership but not sure it's that much better. In some ways I like riding MARTA better than any other for some reason
Of like systems PATH and PATCO or similar eras too in design stock etc
PATH probably beats all in ridership per mile but more a compliment to other subways in NYC and NO
PATCO is just one line in Philly Camden and NJ and the smallest and last of the bunch. Though one nice thing with PATH and PATCO is they run 24/7
But these 5 all are very similar in time built and differences from earlier subways
No, MARTA is all heavy rail. It's Acronym is Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. Los Angeles' system is not, only the Red and Purple lines are heavy rail/rapid transit. The Blue, Gold, Green, and Expo lines are all light rail. The Orange line is a Busway. So, no, LA's Metro doesn't compare to those three systems based on the criteria of the OP. So stop trying to derail the topic by bringing LA up when it wasn't in the topic started by the OP, and it wasn't one of the three systems that the OP brought up, nor did it emerge in the postwar era after WWII. Planning for BART, METRO, and MARTA started in the 1960s, while LA was still building freeways en masse during that time and planning and construction for LA's Metro system didn't start until the 1980s, long after the three systems in this topic were constructed and opened.
Last edited by biscuit_head; 09-16-2017 at 06:57 PM..
I'm from ATL and I'm really not sure if MARTA will ever get serious about rail expansion. Everything takes forever. I have no qualms with putting ATL 3rd due to coverage issues.
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.
