Sunbelt Cities (excluding California) - Best Rail Transit System (better, Atlanta, quality)

[citidata18]

In the poll, I included an "other" options for cities I might have missed. In addition, I left out cities that only have a trolley.

I also excluded California, which is technically considered part of the Sunbelt, because frankly it wouldn't be a fair competition.

Consider the following:

*Ridership (both daily & annual)

*Connectivity throughout MSA

*Miles of rail

*Expansion plans approved or under construction

*Travel time

[2Easy]

You have to consider quality, which is what moves Atlanta up the list because of the heavy rail.

[citidata18]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

You have to consider quality. which is what moves Atlanta up the list because of the heaven rail.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

If you think Atlanta has better transit simply because it has more extensive heavy rail (and I can understand, because HRT tends to be faster), that's one thing.

But when I think "quality," I think in terms of how well the system was built for durability and also how well it's maintained. I don't think durability can easily be judged, and I'm not certain Atlanta excels on the maintenance front.

[whereiend]

Can this just be yet another DART vs. MARTA thread? The other cities in the poll barely have rail at all.

[Turnerbro]

Atlanta and it’s not remotely close.

[Boompa]

Is there a point here? Why is California excluded

[citidata18]

Originally Posted by whereiend

...The other cities in the poll barely have rail at all....

Phoenix - 28.6 Miles of Rail (light rail)
Miami - 95.3 Miles of Rail (heavy rail)
Nashville - 32 miles (heavy rail)
Houston - 22.7 miles (light rail)
Austin - 32 miles (heavy rail)
Charlotte - 19.3 Miles (light rail)

^^^Definitely more than "barely." Atlanta's system, for perspective, is only 48 miles.

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by citidata18

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean.

If you think Atlanta has better transit simply because it has more extensive heavy rail (and I can understand, because HRT tends to be faster), that's one thing.

But when I think "quality," I think in terms of how well the system was built for durability and also how well it's maintained. I don't think durability can easily be judged, and I'm not certain Atlanta excels on the maintenance front.

I meant speed, capacity and reliability. Edit to add reliability since completely grade separated systems tend to be more reliable. In LA for example a car accident next to light rail tracks that doesn't even involve a train can impact service.

[wpipkins2]

Originally Posted by citidata18

Phoenix - 28.6 Miles of Rail (light rail)
Miami - 95.3 Miles of Rail (heavy rail)
Nashville - 32 miles (heavy rail)
Houston - 22.7 miles (light rail)
Austin - 32 miles (heavy rail)
Charlotte - 19.3 Miles (light rail)

^^^Definitely more than "barely." Atlanta's system, for perspective, is only 48 miles.

When did Nashville add heavy rail? Or are you referring to Amtrak or commuter rail?

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by citidata18

Phoenix - 28.6 Miles of Rail (light rail)
Miami - 95.3 Miles of Rail (heavy rail)
Nashville - 32 miles (heavy rail)
Houston - 22.7 miles (light rail)
Austin - 32 miles (heavy rail)
Charlotte - 19.3 Miles (light rail)

^^^Definitely more than "barely." Atlanta's system, for perspective, is only 48 miles.

Nashville and Austin don't have heavy rail using US vernacular. In US terminology "heavy rail" refers to metro/subway style systems as opposed to light rail. Those two cities have "commuter rail", although Austin's is similar to light rail, except with diesel multiple units.