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.
Yes they are.Many and maybe the majority of people who live in the city,move to the city for the convenience and option of riding public transportation.
We know if you live in the suburbs in either of these cities you might as well forget it but as you see,a significant amount of people are using it in the city limits.
being able to go more places faster due to accessibility has and is always the issue but Atlanta has been agresively building near its stations for years to where now people can live near and work more than ever close to transit.
Atlanta is significantly smaller than Dallas as as far as city pop. goes. Which would skew these numbers.
Atlanta is significantly smaller than Dallas as as far as city pop. goes. Which would skew these numbers.
No it would not.Its based on percentage of the population not total ridership.
Even it it were total ridership,Atlanta is still well ahead of Dallas which should tell you that less people use light rail than Heavy rail because the systems of capacity
Los Angeles is ranked just below Atlanta so that should put that notion to rest.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
There is no place like this in Atlanta.
There are plenty of places like this. From the gentrifying neighborhoods on the eastside, neighborhoods around the stations in the Downtown/Midtown core, and the south and west side neighborhoods have been like this for a long time.
Public transit usage is so high in the South side neighborhoods in fact that there is never traffic on the city streets. Ever. It's not just train usage either, but buses are typically packed on south side routes. It just doens't get a lot of attention because the south side neighborhoods are almost entirely composed of poor Black and Latino folks. People tend not care about public transit usage on these boards unless it involves a high percentage of hipsters slumming it on PT.
There are plenty of places like this. From the gentrifying neighborhoods on the eastside, neighborhoods around the stations in the Downtown/Midtown core, and the south and west side neighborhoods have been like this for a long time.
Public transit usage is so high in the South side neighborhoods in fact that there is never traffic on the city streets. Ever. It's not just train usage either, but buses are typically packed on south side routes. It just doens't get a lot of attention because the south side neighborhoods are almost entirely composed of poor Black and Latino folks. People tend not care about public transit usage on these boards unless it involves a high percentage of hipsters slumming it on PT.
There are plenty of places like this. From the gentrifying neighborhoods on the eastside, neighborhoods around the stations in the Downtown/Midtown core, and the south and west side neighborhoods have been like this for a long time.
No, none of those neighborhoods are public transit oriented.
There is no Atlanta neighborhood where most people use transit. In fact no neighborhood comes close, and car ownership dominates in every neighborhood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas
Public transit usage is so high in the South side neighborhoods in fact that there is never traffic on the city streets.
LOL, sure. Hong Kong has the highest transit share on earth, yet has traffic-choked streets. Manhattan has the highest transit share in North America, yet has traffic-choked streets.
And there's no traffic in Detroit, I guess that means, according to you, Detroit has massively high transit usage.
You probably aren't seeing heavy traffic in South Atlanta because it's, for the most part a run-down, undesirable part of town; essentially the "hood", not because every single person in South Atlanta is riding the bus. In the U.S. those types of neighborhoods rarely have heavy street traffic, because there is nothing to attract outsiders.
There are plenty of places like this. From the gentrifying neighborhoods on the eastside, neighborhoods around the stations in the Downtown/Midtown core, and the south and west side neighborhoods have been like this for a long time.
Public transit usage is so high in the South side neighborhoods in fact that there is never traffic on the city streets. Ever. It's not just train usage either, but buses are typically packed on south side routes. It just doens't get a lot of attention because the south side neighborhoods are almost entirely composed of poor Black and Latino folks. People tend not care about public transit usage on these boards unless it involves a high percentage of hipsters slumming it on PT.
Some people just dont understand or realize that having a subway really makes a city stand out that much more.Regardless how many people ride it.
Truthfully as far as quality of living ,ATL,DALHOU are way too much a like with small differences.Sure Dallas and HOU much bigger economies but those are not issues that determine quality of life.
TOD's have been the catalyst for inner city development in Atlanta neighborhoods.We have so many business moving BACK into downtown from the suburbs mainly to be near transit.
Also the same reason Atlanta is selected for companies relocating inside the city or near MARTA.
I bet most of the companies relocating to Dallas or Houston move to the outer areas like Richardson or Plano.
In a recent survey of the "Perfect Millennial City".Atlanta ranked just ahead of Dallas and way ahead of Houston and Miami.
No landslide but as I said before,there really is no huge difference between these cities because we know Dallas and Houston are booming better than any city in the U.S.
So of course economy is a good reason also when you look at the other survey of "Millenial Cities with the most qualities" where HOU and DAL are ahead of Atlanta and other cities like Denver,Miami and San Diego.
No, none of those neighborhoods are public transit oriented.
There is no Atlanta neighborhood where most people use transit. In fact no neighborhood comes close, and car ownership dominates in every neighborhood.
LOL, sure. Hong Kong has the highest transit share on earth, yet has traffic-choked streets. Manhattan has the highest transit share in North America, yet has traffic-choked streets.
And there's no traffic in Detroit, I guess that means, according to you, Detroit has massively high transit usage.
You probably aren't seeing heavy traffic in South Atlanta because it's, for the most part a run-down, undesirable part of town; essentially the "hood", not because every single person in South Atlanta is riding the bus. In the U.S. those types of neighborhoods rarely have heavy street traffic, because there is nothing to attract outsiders.
Stop it with the silly semantics.As we know most U.S.cities are car centric so save for NYC,and maybe Boston,most have cars.Even in D.C. where its metro was built when MARTA was.
However as this is regarding ATL vs DAL,10.1 people dont own cars in DAL versus 16.9%.
Ranking 79 out of 794 vs DAL rank at 230 out 794 "households without cars".
You can go on an on about MARTA being of no consequence but the numbers dont lie.In every measure there IS a sugnificant difference in ridership in both cities and in even the entire South.
You dont know much about Atlanta but you keep talking with authority like you do without so much as ONE source.
Southside is not all rundown.You would know The Cascades are one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Atlanta?
Also, some of the busiest stations are there due like the Airport,College Park,East Point,Westend and on the Westside is H.E Holmes Station.
All of these stations have massive parking lots where people coming from outside of the coverage area are catching trains to get where they need to go.
Just looking at stats thats show MARTA actually has more Avg,Daily Riders per stations than Chicago and Philly.That should show you that while Atlanta does not have the high ridersip it should,there is enough at some stations where usage is extremely high.
IDK.It seems you are really set in thinking you know more than others who live here and ride the systems frequently
Stop it with the silly semantics.As we know most U.S.cities are car centric so save for NYC,and maybe Boston,most have cars.Even in D.C. where its metro was built when MARTA was.
However as this is regarding ATL vs DAL,10.1 people dont own cars in DAL versus 16.9%.
Ranking 79 out of 794 vs DAL rank at 230 out 794 "households without cars".
You can go on an on about MARTA being of no consequence but the numbers dont lie.In every measure there IS a sugnificant difference in ridership in both cities and in even the entire South.
You dont know much about Atlanta but you keep talking with authority like you do without so much as ONE source.
Southside is not all rundown.You would know The Cascades are one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Atlanta?
Also, some of the busiest stations are there due like the Airport,College Park,East Point,Westend and on the Westside is H.E Holmes Station.
All of these stations have massive parking lots where people coming from outside of the coverage area are catching trains to get where they need to go.
Just looking at stats thats show MARTA actually has more Avg,Daily Riders per stations than Chicago and Philly.That should show you that while Atlanta does not have the high ridersip it should,there is enough at some stations where usage is extremely high.
IDK.It seems you are really set in thinking you know more than others who live here and ride the systems frequently
They also have more stations. Assuming this is true, this is a statistical quirk that actually has no meaning. Transit in Chicago and Philadelphia are superior to ATL in terms of coverage and ridership.
They also have more stations. Assuming this is true, this is a statistical quirk that actually has no meaning. Transit in Chicago and Philadelphia are superior to ATL in terms of coverage and ridership.
Thank You so much!
We had no idea Philly and Chicago had superior transits in terms of coverage and ridership.
Now what meaning did your remark have in a "Dallas Vs Atlanta" thread?
Also it has nothing to do with more stations.Its based on percentage of riders that should be using each stations.
Thank You so much!
We had no idea Philly and Chicago had superior transits in terms of coverage and ridership.
Now what meaning did your remark have in a "Dallas Vs Atlanta" thread?
Also it has nothing to do with more stations.Its based on percentage of riders that should be using each stations.
I was just clarifying why (if true - I did not verify and I haven't seen a source) ATL has more riders per station.
Feel free to carry on as you were.
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.
