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.
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.
Well don't forget that LA ripped up and tossed out an existing and comprehensive rail system based a big lawsuit in 1953. So everything they are building, they are technically rebuilding on a different level and that is very post WWII on that front.
If we want to go further, there are plenty of other metro projects that fit the description - Denver, Boston, etc. But if LA fits the description in some way (knowing how these threads go) it should be included.
Even with the purple line extension, I would still rank MARTA above LA as far as rapid transit goes. Atlanta does have really extensive rapid transit system for a sunbelt city.
I do wanna say that I really admire LA's recent commitment and investment into transit expansion. They definitely have a very steep uphill battle though.
Well don't forget that LA ripped up and tossed out an existing and comprehensive rail system based a big lawsuit in 1953. So everything they are building, they are technically rebuilding on a different level and that is very post WWII on that front.
If we want to go further, there are plenty of other metro projects that fit the description - Denver, Boston, etc. But if LA fits the description in some way (knowing how these threads go) it should be included.
Well it wasn't included for a reason... It's not an exclusively heavy rail/rapid transit system like the ones in ATL/DC/SF that were planned/built around the same time in the 60s and 70s with similar technology, which was the premise of this thread and were the first systems to emerge in the postwar era with those types of trains, no matter how many ways you try to spin this to include Los Angeles' metro system. It's a respectable effort and I'm glad it's going well, but it doesn't compare to these systems for very specific reasons. LA's first line that opened in 1990 was a light rail system anyhow, just like the Pacific Railway lines that were torn down back in the 40s and 50s. Denver is light rail too, so no, it doesn't count. Do you know the difference between light and heavy rail?
Make a thread about LA's system since you feel so passionate about it instead of disrupting this thread when we've already answered your question about why LA's system wasn't compared.
Well it wasn't included for a reason... It's not an exclusively heavy rail system like the ones in ATL/DC/SF that were planned/built around the same time in the 60s and 70s, which was the premise of this thread, no matter how many ways you try to spin this. Denver is light rail too, so no, it doesn't count. Make a thread about LA's system since you feel so passionate about it.
I'm not trying to spin anything, and for that matter the MARTA system went above ground most of the time when I taking it from ATL airport to a Buckhead station. Come to think of it, most stations in Buckhead were above around.
OP asked "POST WWII PLANNING" I don't see how just the 1970s are part of criteria. Then again, I don't care enough about rail service (why would I?) to even debate much further. A rather "spectrum" topic on city data forum far too often.
Want to go further and loop in the NJ rail system in Jersey City? That's above ground and it's terrible and new.
I'm not trying to spin anything, and for that matter the MARTA system went above ground most of the time when I taking it from ATL airport to a Buckhead station. Come to think of it, most stations in Buckhead were above around.
OP asked "POST WWII PLANNING" I don't see how just the 1970s are part of criteria. Then again, I don't care enough about rail service (why would I?) to even debate much further. A rather "spectrum" topic on city data forum far too often.
Want to go further and loop in the NJ rail system in Jersey City? That's above ground and it's terrible and new.
No, because NJ's trains weren't included in the OP's question. Learn to stay on topic instead of bringing up all of these other systems as a strawman argument. Or better yet, find something else to talk about since you admit you dont really care about rail service. And apparently don't seem to understand the differences between heavy and light rail.
Last edited by biscuit_head; 09-16-2017 at 09:16 PM..
No, because NJ's trains wasn't included in the OP's question. Learn to stay on topic instead of bringing up all of these other systems as a strawman argument. Or better yet, go away since you admit you dont really care about rail service. And apparently don't seem to understand the differences between heavy and light rail.
Excuse me - what are you talking about? He mentioned "POST WWII" in the description after the subject line in reply 1.
MODS - Maybe change up the criteria on the subject line? A bit of confusion here. Only so much to debate on between 3 rail systems, all of which are very different.
Even with the purple line extension, I would still rank MARTA above LA as far as rapid transit goes. Atlanta does have really extensive rapid transit system for a sunbelt city.
Despite its weaknesses in comprehensive coverage within Atlanta besides the main Airport to Permieter Center spine, MARTA does well with what it has. It has relatively high ridership for few miles, and the system has made lots of improvements over the years despite being ignored by the State of Georgia. It was ambitious for a fast growing, mid-size southern city in the 60s to plan such a system, and it faced massive opposition in the surrounding counties, which were a lot more bucolic and less diverse at the time. Atlanta and it's metro were much smaller when the system was built - it was about the size of Metro Charlotte at the time. The population of Metro Atlanta exploded even more in the 1980s and the 1990s. The Gwinnett extension would be a step in the right direction. Now if only there could be a line that runs from Cumberland/SunTrust Park to Tucker, that would help the Top End of 285 quite a bit. Also, if there was rail transit along Clifton Road connecting it to Buckhead would be awesome too. It'll probably never happen in this lifetime though.
Excuse me - what are you talking about? He mentioned "POST WWII" in the description after the subject line in reply 1.
MODS - Maybe change up the criteria on the subject line? A bit of confusion here. Only so much to debate on between 3 rail systems, all of which are very different.
The three were built in the same period and generally designed to operate in similar ways--heavy rail that operates as commuter rail further out and then as rapid transit in the urban core where multiple lines converge. MARTA is by far the worst of the three and that is likely because the state and the surrounding counties seem pretty inimical to the whole thing.
The PATH system is similar on the surface, but much of it is more of a rebranding of an existing system.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 09-16-2017 at 09:32 PM..
Excuse me - what are you talking about? He mentioned "POST WWII" in the description after the subject line in reply 1.
MODS - Maybe change up the criteria on the subject line? A bit of confusion here. Only so much to debate on between 3 rail systems, all of which are very different.
The post-WWII period is generally considered/understood to be 1945-early 1970s or so. The three systems discussed were planned and/or began construction during this period. LA's system was planned well after that period. Good day...
The post-WWII period is generally considered/understood to be 1945-early 1970s or so. The three systems discussed were planned and/or began construction during this period. LA's system was planned well after that period. Good day...
Wow - OK. Post world war 2 means anytime after 1945 amongst many. Good day to you (get smart)
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.
