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.
Transit doesn't reflect the metro areas broader demographics if you design it in a way that makes it so the minute you can afford not to use it you will avoid it like the plague: with crappy equipment, ill planned routes, unreliable service and limited coverage.
Oh, good grief, what system doesn't have limited coverage?
Quote:
ATL transit doesn't go where people need to go so it isn't that popular. Although it is starting to change as more people are choosing to live in areas served by transit in ATL.
Not that popular for whom? Have you looked at the MARTA rail map?
Quote:
Where I live, we have commuter transit that is full of "choice" riders. My local transit, does have a fairly mixed demographic as well. I choose to ride it a few times a week and I have a car to drive.
Goody for you, but how is that any different from any other transit system? Here's a clue: It's not.
My kids' school is across the road to the south and slightly west. You can play around with the map and find the school.
They had a bus, but as they got older they sometimes wanted to ride their bikes and/or stay late after school and walk home. I taught them to ALWAYS cross at the crosswalk with the light, even though, as you can tell, the bike path actually dumps them on the road in mid-block. (There is now a tunnel under the road, but it wasn't there when my kids were little.) As a driver, I would go out of my way to avoid hitting a pedestrian, especially a kid, probably risking injury to myself as well. After all, I wear a seatbelt and I have airbags. But, IT'S NOT SAFE TO CROSS IN MID-BLOCK! Period. Regardless of an excuse of " (p)eople logically chose the shortest path to their destination across the street. " Adult people are supposed to think.
I'm not sure what your treatise about walking is all about. Denver is the west, although you Californians may not think so. Virtually every developed area has sidewalks. My walking experience is not confined to hiking trails. I've done my share of walking for transportation. But, it snows here! Were you here last Thursday? On the previous Tuesday (two days earlier) the high was 62. It had been in the 50s/60s since Jan. 17. The streets and sidewalks were warm. It got cold on Wednesday and snowed Weds night. There was ICE on the roads and sidewalks from the snow freezing on the warm pavement. If you were staying downtown, and had business in Stapelton, the inimitable "they" might have thought it was odd you didn't want a car. Did "they" really say "weird"? "They" might have thought you'd like to drive around and see some of the sights.
I wasn't talking about Denver. It is pretty walkable and really active. Unlike Atlanta. Not sure why you think I am slighting Denver. Denver like many places in the "west" had a ton of development in the early 1900. Denver isn't that different from much of CA and I am not sure why you think I characterized it as such. I was just making a general,comment in how we, as a society, assume everyone is going to drive for mostly any trip. It is a total American thing.
Atlanta, like most of the southeast is a sidewalk free zone and has very few areas that are designed for or developed with people who are not driving in mind. Which is what caused that accident I referenced (and the unduly harsh punishment for the mom who was punished enough without the criminal system) and part if the reason the snow also caused problems. Engineering the choice out of mobility.
Oh, good grief, what system doesn't have limited coverage?
Not that popular for whom? Have you looked at the MARTA rail map?
Goody for you, but how is that any different from any other transit system? Here's a clue: It's not.
The criticism of Marta is that it doesn't go to the north suburbs where the jobs and new development is. That's a big drawback that isn't remedied if the people who live there refuse to allow more transit. Look at the criticism of the new braves stadium....there is no transit.
In my book, in this day and age, no major development in a major metro area should not include a plan for solid transit access.
I wasn't talking about Denver. It is pretty walkable and really active. Unlike Atlanta. Not sure why you think I am slighting Denver. Denver like many places in the "west" had a ton of development in the early 1900. Denver isn't that different from much of CA and I am not sure why you think I characterized it as such. I was just making a general,comment in how we, as a society, assume everyone is going to drive for mostly any trip. It is a total American thing.
Atlanta, like most of the southeast is a sidewalk free zone and has very few areas that are designed for or developed with people who are not driving in mind. Which is what caused that accident I referenced (and the unduly harsh punishment for the mom who was punished enough without the criminal system) and part if the reason the snow also caused problems. Engineering the choice out of mobility.
Well, probably because you quoted me and made a rather snarky comment about hiking trails, which are common here. I'm not a hiker. Anyway, moving on. . . Atlanta is a pretty old city too. Actually, my great-grandfather helped Gen. Sherman burn it down during the Civil War. But it was rebuilt.
Much of the northeast is devoid of sidewalks as well. Our fearless leader has justified this in his own hometown. Unless you have some sort of crystal ball, you don't really know what factors entered into that accident in Atlanta. Surely, crossing in the middle of a block w/o benefit of crosswalk was a contributing cause. We can debate until the cows come home about the appropriateness (or not) of the punishment, etc but WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING about it.
Well, probably because you quoted me and made a rather snarky comment about hiking trails, which are common here. I'm not a hiker. Anyway, moving on. . . Atlanta is a pretty old city too. Actually, my great-grandfather helped Gen. Sherman burn it down during the Civil War. But it was rebuilt.
Much of the northeast is devoid of sidewalks as well. Our fearless leader has justified this in his own hometown. Unless you have some sort of crystal ball, you don't really know what factors entered into that accident in Atlanta. Surely, crossing in the middle of a block w/o benefit of crosswalk was a contributing cause. We can debate until the cows come home about the appropriateness (or not) of the punishment, etc but WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING about it.
Sorry. I rolled up all of my thoughts into one comment. The hiking trails thing was about the southeast....where neighborhoods don't have sidewalks...but parks do. You kinda have to drive to walk somewhere.
When I went to Connecticut. I was shocked at the dark roads and lack of sidewalks. Another place where you needed to drive to go across the street. *smh*
Well, probably because you quoted me and made a rather snarky comment about hiking trails, which are common here. I'm not a hiker. Anyway, moving on. . . Atlanta is a pretty old city too. Actually, my great-grandfather helped Gen. Sherman burn it down during the Civil War. But it was rebuilt.
jade408 was comparing the southeast to the west, both California and Denver. Atlanta is not an old city, very little of Atlanta dates from the 19th century. Like just about everywhere, it existed in the 1860s, but it was tiny (only about 12,000 people) compared its present size. What was so snarky about the hiking trail comment?
Also, aren't Coloradans supposed to be hikers (why else would you live there?!) And I remember some comment about suburbanites being more familiar with the outdoors.
Quote:
Much of the northeast is devoid of sidewalks as well. Our fearless leader has justified this in his own hometown. Unless you have some sort of crystal ball, you don't really know what factors entered into that accident in Atlanta. Surely, crossing in the middle of a block w/o benefit of crosswalk was a contributing cause. We can debate until the cows come home about the appropriateness (or not) of the punishment, etc but WE DON'T KNOW EVERYTHING about it.
I don't think sidewalks are particularly important in low-traffic residential streets, I also think that saying "it's walkable because they are sidewalks there" is a bit silly: many other factors come into play, including the ease of crossing the street.
What else do we need to know? I think it's rather outrageous that crossing the street midblock when there's was no nearby crosswalk resulted in charges while the driver (who was likely drunk) never got similarly charged. Can't think of any other information that could make it less so. The little kid darting into traffic could happen anyplace.
this happened because the NOAA has become so incredibly ineffective, incorrect and inept at predicting and forecasting weather events that we no longer can rely on *anything* they say. People need to be prepared for the worst at all times and just take it as it comes.
Oh, good grief, what system doesn't have limited coverage?
That comment doesn't make any sense. Not all transit systems are the same, sure they have limitations, but some are far more limited than others. You can't just lump them all together.
Quote:
Not that popular for whom? Have you looked at the MARTA rail map?
As jade408 said, there are large gaps in MARTA rail coverage.
Quote:
Goody for you, but how is that any different from any other transit system? Here's a clue: It's not.
That's false. Some transit systems have a ridership that closely reflect the population. Others mainly poor people. Looking at Long Island, the bus system of the outermost county, Suffolk, has a ridership mainly of poor or non-employed people; most who value their time wouldn't ride the system. Nassau County's ridership is poorer than the population, but gets some middle-class people and those with decent jobs. Going into the city, Queens' bus ridership isn't that the different from the local population. Any other transit system is NOT how jade408 described; there's variation.
My kids' school is across the road to the south and slightly west. You can play around with the map and find the school.
They had a bus, but as they got older they sometimes wanted to ride their bikes and/or stay late after school and walk home. I taught them to ALWAYS cross at the crosswalk with the light, even though, as you can tell, the bike path actually dumps them on the road in mid-block. (There is now a tunnel under the road, but it wasn't there when my kids were little.) As a driver, I would go out of my way to avoid hitting a pedestrian, especially a kid, probably risking injury to myself as well. After all, I wear a seatbelt and I have airbags. But, IT'S NOT SAFE TO CROSS IN MID-BLOCK! Period. Regardless of an excuse of " (p)eople logically chose the shortest path to their destination across the street. " Adult people are supposed to think.
I cross mid-block at times. As long as you can see traffic, I don't think it's particularly unsafe. Wait for a gap and go. And expecting someone to make a 10 minute detour to avoid crossing mid-block is completely unrealistic; I wouldn't do it. The safety of crossing mid-block depending on the volume and speed of the traffic. And the road width. Your S Boulder Rd. example is very wide; it looks like it would rather terrible to cross mid-block unless the road is completely empty. And just because you're crossing at the intersection doesn't mean it's perfectly safe:
not sure how the traffic is here, but in my experience any intersection with a wide, fast road can be iffy because you have to deal with turning cars moving rather quickly. That road looks rather pedestrian-unfriendly, there's a large gap between crosswalks. In contrast this road isn't that bad to cross mid-block. Much narrower:
But, it snows here! Were you here last Thursday? On the previous Tuesday (two days earlier) the high was 62. It had been in the 50s/60s since Jan. 17. The streets and sidewalks were warm. It got cold on Wednesday and snowed Weds night. There was ICE on the roads and sidewalks from the snow freezing on the warm pavement.
From your posts it seems like you equate snow with ice. Maybe Denver is different than here? Usually after a snowstorm, there's little ice for the next few days because it's chilly enough not much melts and refreezes. I often enjoy walking after a snowstorm whether the sidewalks are shoveled or not. Ice generally comes from storms that have a mix of rain and snow, or freezing rain but not as much snowstorms.
Well, then it was nobody's fault and any further discussion is pointless, no? Especially in relation to the topic at hand, which is the effect of an unusual weather event on the city's transportation network.
I'd say the road designers are at least partially to blame for making practical walking unsafe. And the driver if he was drunk.
Anyhow to the topic, I think the premise is a bit silly and there is not much more to add. But if you want more...
Here's what happened to London after a snowstorm. It's not very sprawly at all, and its public transit is far less limited than Atlanta's. Arguably less limited than any American one. And snow is about as familiar to London as Atlanta.
Just about all buses canceled. Some subway line shutdown. Rail lines suffered large delays, though it still run. For those driving, there were "too many incidents to count". A highway, M25, had a 32 mile traffic jam.
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.
