Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas
I'll give you the DC metro is a league above every city in the States except NYC in terms of coverage and usage, but I really don't understand your premise for how BART whallops MARTA?
If it is the maps, then that is an example of how BART and MARTA equalize. As you can see on the MARTA map (which is not to scale), the majority of the system's stations are in Atlanta proper. With BART, the majority of the stations are not in San Francisco proper. Thusly, MARTA serves it's central city better than BART and BART serves it's suburbs better than MARTA.
However, as you should know (do you?), it really doesn't matter what the coverage is if no one rides it. Because of that, the most important factor of judging how good of a transit system a city has is to look at how many people ride it on a daily basis.
BART has a daily ridership of 300,000 passengers
MARTA has a daily rail ridership of 260,000 passengers
In other words, they are essentially equal and neither holds an advantage over the other.
With that said, and as others have stated, MARTA is leagues above the rail transit available in Dallas and Denver and is better than LA's rail for now (although they technically have a higher ridership than MARTA when Light Rail and Subway is combined, it is only be a few thousand passengers. MARTA is better at that metric given Los Angeles has a central city population 8 times higher than Atlanta and a metro population three times higher).
|
BART is a very expensive system with a different track gauge, which restrict it to specialized cars. MARTA on the other hand, can share car stock with Baltimore (or any other city that uses heavy rail).
Also, BART is a commuter railroad (suburban fares) that operates like heavy rail (stations). On the other hand, MARTA is just simply heavy rail, which charges a flat fare fee. It is mostly restricted to the city proper.
The only thing that is common about them is they are grade separated and have ART in their names.