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.
Nashville and Austin both need it the most with the explosive growth they've had. Both cities have a single sort-of-useful commuter rail line, but I think both will build BRT/LRT in the near future.
But Nashville, like Cincy, is the most dense with the most walkble, lively downtown neighborhood. And when it comes to positive public-service infrastructure like mass transit, it just seems more progressive than the others which seem perpetually tied up in the old regressive American bugaboos preventing transit growth: city vs. suburbs (Detroit), '...rapid transit is too expensive and people won't use it.' (Detroit, Columbus), 'buses can do the job and, hey, what about ride-share, electric cars, etc. (Columbus) ...
The densest zip code in Nashville is about 6500 ppsm. After that you drop down to 3600 ppsm. That doesn't sound very dense to me, and just by looking at a picture of Cincy, you can see it is far denser.
True, metro density stats are meaningless. My metro has thousands of square miles of forest and a well-known volcano and national park...not really part of the city.
As for Seattle's proposed supertall...701 4th by Crescent Heights. It's been puttering around for a few years and is currently in a process with the FAA.
The densest zip code in Nashville is about 6500 ppsm. After that you drop down to 3600 ppsm. That doesn't sound very dense to me, and just by looking at a picture of Cincy, you can see it is far denser.
Wow that is surprising! Nashville boosters make it seem a lot more dense and urban. I'm struggling to conceive how it can be that low though. By comparison, San Diego metro has 274 census tracts with population density above 6,500. Even San Diego suburbs 1 hour from downtown have multiple census tracts above 10,000 ppsm.
What source are you using? Is it based on 2010 census data?
It seemed a lot more dense than 6,500 ppsm on my recent visit.
The densest zip code in Nashville is about 6500 ppsm. After that you drop down to 3600 ppsm. That doesn't sound very dense to me, and just by looking at a picture of Cincy, you can see it is far denser.
Not sure if you're using numbers from the 2010 census. The densest tracts are from 12-13,000 ppsm, though not incredibly dense, this isn't that far off from other southeastern cities. I suspect a lot of these to change once the official numbers from the 2020 census are available.
Wow that is surprising! Nashville boosters make it seem a lot more dense and urban. I'm struggling to conceive how it can be that low though. By comparison, San Diego metro has 274 census tracts with population density above 6,500. Even San Diego suburbs 1 hour from downtown have multiple census tracts above 10,000 ppsm.
What source are you using? Is it based on 2010 census data?
It seemed a lot more dense than 6,500 ppsm on my recent visit.
See example of a few select census tracts below, however don't see how up to date these numbers are on these links as they could be different as of now.
Wow that is surprising! Nashville boosters make it seem a lot more dense and urban. I'm struggling to conceive how it can be that low though. By comparison, San Diego metro has 274 census tracts with population density above 6,500. Even San Diego suburbs 1 hour from downtown have multiple census tracts above 10,000 ppsm.
What source are you using? Is it based on 2010 census data?
It seemed a lot more dense than 6,500 ppsm on my recent visit.
Not sure if you're using numbers from the 2010 census. The densest tracts are from 12-13,000 ppsm, though not incredibly dense, this isn't that far off from other southeastern cities. I suspect a lot of these to change once the official numbers from the 2020 census are available.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joakim3
Honestly, none of them...
If places like SF, Baltimore, ATL, Philly, Boston, Miami (which all have existing lines) can't even expand current ones, let alone build new lines... the chances of any of these cities building a completely new heavy rail is almost zero.
If you're not NYC, DC, LA or Chicago the chances of your city throwing up a completely new heavy rail system is almost non existent at this point
I mostly agree with this regarding any meaningful projects that could come up in the next 10 years or so. The Maglev between DC and Baltimore has a chance and could be approved next year with construction in 2021. But for metro systems, WMATA proposed a few different routes for adding a new tunnel in the core of DC. Either by creating a loop with the Blue and Yellow lines circling the core, or separating the Blue or Silver lines completely. Basically this would be DC's version of an expansion like the 2nd Ave Subway in Manhattan, if it happens. Those additions wouldn't happen for closer to 20-25 years though.
I don't see any cities without significant heavy rail already in their cores breaking much more ground on any massive projects at the moment, but let's hope that's not the case.
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.
