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 you are still missing the point. This is about metro areas, not just the cities themselves. If we were talking cities the yes, Atlanta would have a pretty good system, but we are talking overall metro areas. Places like Nashville and Raleigh may not have Rapid transit, but these metro areas have an overall higher percentage of residents near some form of transit than metro Atlanta. Only about a third of the residents of metro Atlanta are near some form of transit (making about 4 million of about 6 million residents with no alternative but to drive). That is the lowest percentage of any metro over 1 million residents.
If people decide to live 25 miles outside of Atlanta, are we really expecting them to ride transit? In most cities around the globe, you're not going to find rail lines go out 20-25 miles from the city core. Only in the truly larger cities like NYC, Paris, Tokyo, London, and other mega cities will you find that.
If people decide to live 25 miles outside of Atlanta, are we really expecting them to ride transit? In most cities around the globe, you're not going to find rail lines go out 20-25 miles from the city core. Only in the truly larger cities like NYC, Paris, Tokyo, London, and other mega cities will you find that.
It's a result of Atlanta being too sprawled.
No, that's rather standard in Europe, because most towns near a big city have rail. Boston, Philly, Chicago, and San Francisco all have some type of commuter rail extending out from the core at least 20-25 miles. Edinburgh has commuter rail extending 20-25 miles in some directions, which I have used. Copenhagen's rail, similar in BART in being a suburban system and in frequencies, extends roughly 25 miles out from the center.
Atlanta's still too sprawled anyway due to how much space the whole metro takes up. It's pretty unrealistic to be able to get rail out to adequately service 4-5k square miles of land and rail wouldn't make sense in densities of <2k which you will find plenty of in the Atlanta suburbs.
I think Atlanta should focus on a great rail system within the city itself. The surrounding counties don't want rail anyway. They just vote it down everytime.
Atlanta's still too sprawled anyway due to how much space the whole metro takes up. It's pretty unrealistic to be able to get rail out to adequately service 4-5k square miles of land and rail wouldn't make sense in densities of <2k which you will find plenty of in the Atlanta suburbs.
I think Atlanta should focus on a great rail system within the city itself. The surrounding counties don't want rail anyway. They just vote it down everytime.
Agreed that's more the issue. I'm not that familiar with Atlanta so I won't comment. Although Boston has similar low density in its outer suburbs, which low frequency commuter rail. The difference is the center of Boston is much inconvenient to drive and park in (I met someone from Atlanta and was shocked to hear her family only took transit to go downtown once). NYC has some low density suburbs covered by MetroNorth as well.
But is Atlanta's transit coverage really worse than smaller southern cities like Raleigh? That sounds surprising.
Los Angeles, no contest. Pubic transport is available, but the area is too spread out and congested for it to be effective.
So the city with 2 heavy rail subways, 4 LRT lines, 2 BRT lines, 191+ local bus lines, a dozen Rapid Bus lines and a handful of commuter rail lines has the worst transit in the nation?
So the city with 2 heavy rail subways, 4 LRT lines, 2 BRT lines, 191+ local bus lines, a dozen Rapid Bus lines and a handful of commuter rail lines has the worst transit in the nation?
With more to come at that, I think it stems down to the old "we here in Northern California hate LA" scenario. Obviously I would say its a minority but for those that do, give it a rest guys, the one way hatred is getting old.
Agreed that's more the issue. I'm not that familiar with Atlanta so I won't comment. Although Boston has similar low density in its outer suburbs, which low frequency commuter rail. The difference is the center of Boston is much inconvenient to drive and park in (I met someone from Atlanta and was shocked to hear her family only took transit to go downtown once). NYC has some low density suburbs covered by MetroNorth as well.
But is Atlanta's transit coverage really worse than smaller southern cities like Raleigh? That sounds surprising.
No, it isn't...and it would be surprising if it were true. There are a lot of comments on Atlanta's transit in this thread from people who have no idea what they are talking about.
Atlanta's still too sprawled anyway due to how much space the whole metro takes up. It's pretty unrealistic to be able to get rail out to adequately service 4-5k square miles of land and rail wouldn't make sense in densities of <2k which you will find plenty of in the Atlanta suburbs.
I think Atlanta should focus on a great rail system within the city itself. The surrounding counties don't want rail anyway. They just vote it down everytime.
I'm not sure when the last time a county voted against rail transit. TSPLOST was defeated recently, but that wasn't just about rail transit...there were some things included in it that many people opposed. It was even defeated in counties with rail transit, so it was more about the package than rail transit itself.
Cobb and Gwinnett counties voted against MARTA back in the 70s, but both are currently considering their own separate systems to connect with MARTA.
Some of you are still missing the point. This is about metro areas, not just the cities themselves. If we were talking cities the yes, Atlanta would have a pretty good system, but we are talking overall metro areas. Places like Nashville and Raleigh may not have Rapid transit, but these metro areas have an overall higher percentage of residents near some form of transit than metro Atlanta. Only about a third of the residents of metro Atlanta are near some form of transit (making about 4 million of about 6 million residents with no alternative but to drive). That is the lowest percentage of any metro over 1 million residents.
Where did you get this information about 2/3 of Atlanta residents with no transit alternatives? Can you post a reference please? Even exurban counties like Forsyth have carpooling services.
Here's the linkhttp://www.brookings.edu/about/programs/metro/jobs-and-transit/metro-profiles
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.
