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.
It's definitely San Diego. I have been there a few times and I would love to live there. Went to Seattle..NOT impressed. If I want crappy weather I'll live in NYC...way better than seattle.
For Seattle always claiming to be such a progressive city you'd think they would have a more established rail system like San Diego, which has had theirs for well over 25 years.
For Seattle always claiming to be such a progressive city you'd think they would have a more established rail system like San Diego, which has had theirs for well over 25 years.
You can't constitute "progressive" form just a rail system. Seattle does have a monorail which in fact is progressive.
You can't constitute "progressive" form just a rail system. Seattle does have a monorail which in fact is progressive.
I wasn't saying JUST a rail system means your progressive at all, but many cities that pride themselves on that and being "green" tend to have one. A city like Seattle, which is like Portland, seems like it should already have one, which it's just now starting to get.
Disneyland has a monorail too that serves pretty much the same function, moving around visitors; so you've had the public transit of a theme park until recently, yeah i guess that's progressive.......
I wasn't saying JUST a rail system means your progressive at all, but many cities that pride themselves on that and being "green" tend to have one. A city like Seattle, which is like Portland, seems like it should already have one, which it's just now starting to get.
Disneyland has a monorail too that serves pretty much the same function, moving around visitors; so you've had the public transit of a theme park until recently, yeah i guess that's progressive.......
People throw in comparisons between Seattle and Portland a lot, but in this case, I don't think the comparison is entirely accurate.
First, have you been to Portland and Seattle? Seattle has hills of such a steep grade that I cannot help but think that the geography plays a big role in the reluctance to develop light rail. Any light rail would most likely have to include downtown (which has massive grade hills), Queen Anne (a neighborhood built along a tall hill), and Capital Hill (another neighborhood that requires climbing a hill to reach it) ... there's no way around the fact that the price tag would be huge.
Portland, on the other hand, has a geography typical of river towns: relatively flat and far more consistent than Seattle. It is an ideal geography for light rail.
Another thing to consider in all of this is the following: although both towns are well-known for being liberal, the liberalism that each town exhibits is a bit different. Seattle is, in my opinion, far more libertarian than liberal, per se. The town was a blue-collar town for most of its history until the 1990s, and though there is an underlying friendliness, it is also a place where people keep their distance. I think that self-sufficiency is so highly valued that, in my mind, it makes sense that Seattle would not have developed light rail.
Portland, on the other hand, is far, FAR more socialist in nature. The concept of mass transit was embraced quickly and easily here, far sooner than most other places (NYC being probably the only real exception). It makes sense that a town that prides itself on its communal nature would set about with creating a system for mass transit early on.
Seattle grew so quickly in the span of a decade that it now has to catch up. And ironically, it looks to Portland for a lot of those answers. But since the economy is so bad right now -- and even if it wasn't, the logistics of creating mass transit in Seattle now are daunting -- Seattle is probably a good 20 years behind Portland on the light rail issue.
yes I have been to both and Seattle's hills aren't any bigger than any of the hills in SF yet they have lots of light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail. And they are currently building a light rail system so it's not like the hills or geography were really ever an issue. That bus tunnel that they've had downtown for decades was suppose to be for a rail system, which it's only now being converted for.
Places a lot more conservative and where "self-sufficiency is so highly valued" as well already have light rail systems like SD, Sacramento, Dallas, SLC, etc.... Yes Seattle is behind Portland and a whole list of other cities when it comes to rail development and that is what my point mainly is.
Actually Seattle's light rail line (Sound Transit's Central Link) which runs between Downtown and SeaTac Airport is scheduled to start service in 2009.
For Seattle always claiming to be such a progressive city you'd think they would have a more established rail system like San Diego, which has had theirs for well over 25 years.
But in San Diego the car is king. Rail or no rail Seattle is more dense, urban, walkable and bike friendly. Spreading over 350 square miles, San Diego still has a suburban feel and quality about it.
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.
