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.
The topic is clearly these three systems and it's these three that share a very similar origin and era--I believe the Twin Cities were also offered federal funding for something like these, but rejected it. It's too bad.
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.
Actually that will be one of the next extensions, but it will be LRT. Atlanta voters approved an additional 1/2 cent transit tax in November to beef up MARTA within the City. In addition to the Clifton Line to Emory & the CDC, it will fund the buildout of the streetcar network on the BeltLine and crosstown lines, add several BRT routes and generally improve the bus system. There will also be a short extension to the Blue Line on the Westside.
Going forward MARTA will resemble systems such as Metro in L.A., SEPTA and the T with mixed HRT & LRT. Our next big HRT expansions will be the Red Line to Alpharetta (a HUGE game changer), and the Blue Line to Stonecrest Mall. The State will have to step up with funding for those to happen though.
The topic is clearly these three systems and it's these three that share a very similar origin and era--I believe the Twin Cities were also offered federal funding for something like these, but rejected it. It's too bad.
Wtf? This seems really stupid to me is there a good reason why anyone would say no to this?
Seattle voters did as well, MARTA got that pot of Federal money.
What?
Wow, I really wouldn't expect that from Seattle.
Seriously... why??? What is the plus side to saying no?? If the Feds are offering you money, especially for something as important and expensive as a rapid transit system, TAKE THE ****ING MONEY!! With how fast Seattle is growing now, and how much they are spending on just a light rail today, I bet they really regret this. I'm sure Seattle would really benefit hugely from a rapid transit system today.
I just don't understand... I can't even think of one good reason to turn this down. And please don't tell me it was for highways or something to prioritize cars over pedestrians.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,462 posts, read 44,083,751 times
Reputation: 16856
Quote:
Originally Posted by That_One_Guy
What?
Wow, I really wouldn't expect that from Seattle.
Seriously... why??? What is the plus side to saying no?? If the Feds are offering you money, especially for something as important and expensive as a rapid transit system, TAKE THE ****ING MONEY!! With how fast Seattle is growing now, and how much they are spending on just a light rail today, I bet they really regret this. I'm sure Seattle would really benefit hugely from a rapid transit system today.
I just don't understand... I can't even think of one good reason to turn this down. And please don't tell me it was for highways or something to prioritize cars over pedestrians.
Different place, different time...Seattle simply didn't want the disruption that would have been involved.
Different place, different time...Seattle simply didn't want the disruption that would have been involved.
Well, I'm sure they're kicking themselves now. I guess I can kind of see that it was a different time, but what good reason is there to turn down any Federal funding at all? For anything? Especially if it's something that will aid in growth. I just don't understand....
Well, I'm sure they're kicking themselves now. I guess I can kind of see that it was a different time, but what good reason is there to turn down any Federal funding at all? For anything? Especially if it's something that will aid in growth. I just don't understand....
Well, it's easier to see this all in hindsight. I'm sure both Seattle and Twin Cities would love to have that kind of system now. My feeling is that both would be in the same tier of urbanity that DC is in now had they had those systems built, but they're trying hard to expand their systems now.
We could look at % of each city that uses mass transit as an indicator of their successes since they all came to fruition during a similar period... I didn't dig further by system and granted it's a little dated but I assume it won't cause much fluctuation on rank.
3. Washington, D.C. - 37.4%
5. San Francisco, California - 33.1%
37. Atlanta, Georgia - 9.8%
Well, it's easier to see this all in hindsight. I'm sure both Seattle and Twin Cities would love to have that kind of system now. My feeling is that both would be in the same tier of urbanity that DC is in now had they had those systems built, but they're trying hard to expand their systems now.
It's good that they're trying to fix their mistakes, but it's such a shame thinking of what could have been. Especially with Seattle. Smh....
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.
