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.
And this is a perfect illustration of Atlanta's heavy, even extreme, auto-orientation. It's transit usage is closer to 0 than to that of even Seattle, which is also pretty auto-oriented for global standards, and would be a bad place to go car-free.
Granted, Atlanta is hardly alone. Pretty much all the newer metros in the U.S. have the same auto-orientation. As the list shows, many metros are even worse, some far worse.
Only place in the U.S. where it's reasonable to go car-free across large geographies is NYC area. Then there are five or six metros with some limited geographies where it's possible. Outside of these places, cars dominate.
And your points are "relevant" how when the discussion is "Dallas vs Atlanta"? Obviously there is a significant difference between these two car centric cities.There was never any argument about that.
Point is you tried to act like there was no difference and there actually is a significant difference.Otherwise,what would be the point of even having any type of rail system that is slated for expansion?
Also just being in area where cars dominate does not mean these systems have little meaning or impact.What it comes down to is having an option. Atlanta ,you can live somewhat easier without a car than you can in Dallas and stats show that in the usuage.
End of discussion
I don't need to; as I know the Census tract clusters in the U.S. with dominant transit share, and they are all in the NYC area.
The U.S. is a very auto-oriented nation. Even the Chicagos and Phillys of the world don't have high transit share over sizable geographies.
Lets go back to see where the disagrement started:
Quote:
Not many people making good salaries are choosing to get around exclusively by bus/train in these cities.
Quote:
There is no place like this in Atlanta.
Atlanta is massively car-centric, per Census-based ridership data. It's essentially the same as Dallas.
Quote:
They know that Atlanta is an extremely car-centric city, not unlike Dallas. Very few choice riders.
Many posters gave you more than a few examples of official data debunking these remarks of yours.
Based on your comments ,you were wrong and shown with official facts that your statements were not quite accurate.
The very fact that I can travel from the airport to the end of the MARTA line at North Springs in 43 min riding MARTA (31 miles) versus In Dallas from DFW Airport to Plano at 32 miles its takes 1hr 46min on the Orange line with cars take half the capacity SLOWER than MARTA is a big difference.
MARTA goes out further ,carries more people and faster.
DART has more stops but many of them are desserted as Dallas has not grown into where thesystem is or needs to take people.Atlanta also but far less as TOD have inccreased density near MARTA stations making those places,the "destinations".
I dare you to live in both cities for a week only using public transit and see which on is better
Funny this thread is still going. Its like arguing which is colder: North Dakota or South Dakota. North Dakota is colder but they are both extremely cold. Same with Atlanta and Dallas both being car centric.
And your points are "relevant" how when the discussion is "Dallas vs Atlanta"? Obviously there is a significant difference between these two car centric cities.There was never any argument about that.
Point is you tried to act like there was no difference and there actually is a significant difference.Otherwise,what would be the point of even having any type of rail system that is slated for expansion?
Also just being in area where cars dominate does not mean these systems have little meaning or impact.What it comes down to is having an option. Atlanta ,you can live somewhat easier without a car than you can in Dallas and stats show that in the usuage.
End of discussion
Usage doesn't just show ease, it also reflects preference. There are many reasons why Atlanta has higher usage but usage itself isn't proof that a system is "better." Well, unless just you measure better as in more people using it. In which case, you are compost Roy right and I have no idea why anyone else would bother arguing that point.
Living in typical suburbia, I find it very easy to live in DFW without a car, relying on public transit (and obviously my feet). It's probably easier within Dallas itself.
Funny this thread is still going. Its like arguing which is colder: North Dakota or South Dakota. North Dakota is colder but they are both extremely cold. Same with Atlanta and Dallas both being car centric.
Atlanta got this over Dallas: better skyline, more urbanized and organized subdistrict like Mid Town and Buckhead and better transportation
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.
