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.
If that's the case, then why is Houston so late in trying to implement a comprehensive public transport system with rail?
Politicians. Houstonians wanted rail (the majority at least), but the big oil heads didn't. Houston's system is about to expand now, so it isn't a big deal. Ridership isn't too bad either for a 7.5 miles line (45,000). When the expansions are complete in 2012, Houston's system will have the same amount of miles as MARTA.
I really don't care if they're allowed to annex. What I'm saying is statistics (like city growth vs metro growth) aren't true gauges of Atlanta's sprawl because the cities area is so small.
How is Houston very dense compared to Atlanta??!! They both have about 3500 /sq mi city density and about the same metro density also so what are you talking about?
Well, actually, Houston is at 3700 and metro area wise, not close: USA Urbanized Areas: 2000 Ranked by Population(465 Areas) . I do wish Atlanta was able to annex Sandy Springs. That would have been a gold mine in terms of new tax base, etc. Just think about it. Perimeter Mall and all of those office towers going up and already there. There is a ton of new development up there in the Perimeter Center, that I wish was in Atlanta's city limits.
The street grid system and the relatively flat topography allows Houston's core to be denser than Atlanta's. Atlanta is dense along Peachtree and several major thoroughfares, but when you leave the main streets, Atlanta is not very dense--although this is changing daily. I've never been to Houston, but after looking at some of the pictures posted on this site, I'm impressed at its density within its Inner Loop. And to think that just now they're trying to implement a light rail system.
You talk as if Atlanta has extremely low density. 3600/sq mi is not remarkable but it's still not that low at all as major american cities go. Once again, Atlanta's density is greater than Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Phoenix, Nashville, Memphis, Charlotte, Kansas City,MO, Columbus,Oh, and Austin, and all these cities have higher populations.
So why aren't you on all of their sites bashing them for being low density cities.
Also, you brag that the inner loop has higher density than the rest of Houston. Well I don't have figures but anyone who lives in Atlanta will tell you the North side is higher density than the south side. In fact most cities have some part that's more dense than other parts. Houston is not unique when it comes to that.
We're not talking about other cities, we're talking about Houston in relation to Atlanta. Collectively, both cities are not dense at all. The point I was trying to make is that Houston has a denser core than Atlanta. That's the only point I was trying to make.
Granted there is a lot of development in the area, so this photo is bound to change (already is).
That picture is of Midtown West on the opposite side of the Downtown Connector (I 75/85). If you immediately cross it, the urban landscape looks like this...
Fourteenth Street is an east-west street, wheras Atlanta's development patterns are situated linearly North-South.
Politicians. Houstonians wanted rail (the majority at least), but the big oil heads didn't. Houston's system is about to expand now, so it isn't a big deal. Ridership isn't too bad either for a 7.5 miles line (45,000). When the expansions are complete in 2012, Houston's system will have the same amount of miles as MARTA.
Atlantas rail is rapid heavy rail as opposed to the slow light rail being built in Houston. It streches 48 miles and (despite many saying it doesn't go where they want) has an average daily ridership of 189,000.
Houston has a long, long way to go to catch up with this.
Atlantas rail is rapid heavy rail as opposed to the slow light rail being built in Houston. It streches 48 miles and (despite many saying it doesn't go where they want) has an average daily ridership of 189,000.
Houston has a long, long way to go to catch up with this.
Not really. Just one of the new light rail lines in Houston will double the ridership, so we are looking at something over 90,000. Add in the other four, you 130,000+ will be easy. Houston will also be getting commuter rail before Atlanta does, so that adds to the numbers up.
Atlanta does have the Beltline project (which is moving forward) and the Peachtree Streetcar proposal, which is real nice, so it has a lot going for it.
Gwinnett County residents want MARTA though. There was a recent poll to this (check Atlanta Metroscape). I doubt MARTA expands, but it is something to thing about.
Location: Uniquely Individual Villages of the Megalopolis
646 posts, read 813,645 times
Reputation: 36
Having the options to drive or take light rail and/or train/subway is the ideal I would think. Newer cities shouldn't feel they need to meet with older standards of older cities from bygone eras. They developed according to the needs of their time, likewise the newer cities in more hospitable climates and different energy sources today should develop hopefully in a more comfortable manner.
Sanitation, space, and safety are more desired and suitable today unlike industrial societies of old. There is nothing worse than being on an old creaking subway squeezed in with every type of person underground in your face coughing and/or sneezing. It's bound to happen and we have to remember the high incidence of germs and the new types that are drug resistant out there today. It's hard to remember what has touched those poles and windows you sit or stand in.
Such is but one downside of density to consider especially when you are not in control of your environment even temporarily and constrained in movement. There is lots to personally sacrifice to achieve high density, just don't do it the old fashioned ways and model yourselves after older cities stumbling along the same ways. They set no standards especially in the health departments.
Having the options to drive or take light rail and/or train/subway is the ideal I would think. Newer cities shouldn't feel they need to meet with older standards of older cities from bygone eras. They developed according to the needs of their time, likewise the newer cities in more hospitable climates and different energy sources today should develop hopefully in a more comfortable manner.
Sanitation, space, and safety are more desired and suitable today unlike industrial societies of old. There is nothing worse than being on an old creaking subway squeezed in with every type of person underground in your face coughing and/or sneezing. It's bound to happen and we have to remember the high incidence of germs and the new types that are drug resistant out there today. It's hard to remember what has touched those poles and windows you sit or stand in.
Such is but one downside of density to consider especially when you are not in control of your environment even temporarily and constrained in movement. There is lots to personally sacrifice to achieve high density, just don't do it the old fashioned ways and model yourselves after older cities stumbling along the same ways. They set no standards especially in the health departments.
There is nothing worse than inhaling toxic exhaust fumes while sitting in a traffic jam on a freeway and wasting a non-renewable resource by running a simple errand that could be done by foot in a proper walkable urban area. Give me an "old, creaky subway" instead of a stressful commute on a clogged freeway! Also, I don't think that germs only live in public transport carriages. The bathroom door at your office, the gas pump at the service station, the railing of the escalator at the mall, and probably half of the offerings on the buffet at your local Golden Corral have their fair share of bacteria and microbes as well.
Walkable communities are much more sustainable in that resources aren't wasted as much and social interaction is improved. When land uses are segregated, it results in awful sprawl, large arterials that remain clogged, and a built environment that caters more to machine than man. No thanks.
There is nothing worse than inhaling toxic exhaust fumes while sitting in a traffic jam on a freeway and wasting a non-renewable resource by running a simple errand that could be done by foot in a proper walkable urban area. Also, I don't think that germs only live in public transport carriages. The bathroom door at your office, the gas pump at the service station, the railing of the escalator at the mall, and probably half of the offerings on the buffet at your local Golden Corral have their fair share of bacteria and microbes as well.
Walkable communities are much more sustainable in that resources aren't wasted as much and social interaction is improved. When land uses are segregated, it results in awful sprawl, large arterials that remain clogged, and a built environment that caters more to machine than man. No thanks.
Hmmm, but you can't listen to the radio on public trans. And you can't look cute and successful on the bus. Air conditioning, soft cushioning...and how are you supposed to go to the drive thru??
Owning a car might be a little overrated, but not owning a car is even more overrated.lol
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.
